As a studious observer of the human heart, trusted keeper of stories and secrets, maker of lessons, experienced practitioner of temptation and seduction, and eager student of maleness in all its forms, I’m ashamed to admit I’ve been utterly duped, deceived, swindled, fooled, hookwinked, bamboozled, deluded and beguiled by a cad. I’m 55, and I’m still making rookie mistakes.

I really thought Adam was starting to feel something for Hannah. I didn’t listen to the guys here. They called it easily: Adam is stringing Hannah along, he doesn’t give a shit.

“But no!” I thought. Actions speak louder than words! Hannah told him she really cares about him, she told him she wanted to stop seeing him because it feels so shitty that he doesn’t care, and he pulled her in for a passionate kiss. Surely not even a guy as self-indulgent as Adam would look at those tear-filled eyes and see one more opportunity to get laid! I wish.

The day after their most recent hookup, Hannah shares her good news with Jessa:

Hannah: I have a boyfriend.

Jessa: Who?

Hannah: Adam. I told him everything, how he was torturing me, how sad I was, and he responded in such a lovely way…he like kissed me and kissed me and kissed me and he said, “Be who you are” and he touched my face and like we’re basically together now.

Later that same day, Hannah drops by Adam’s apartment unannounced, as usual. (A necessity when your “boyfriend” doesn’t answer your texts or calls, I suppose.) Also as usual, Adam is shirtless, displaying his pale squishy torso, ew. I don’t believe we’ve ever seen this guy in a shirt. Hannah comes up from behind and rubs against him.

Adam: What are you doing?

Hannah: What does it look like I’m doing?

Adam: You shouldn’t do that.

Hannah: Why?

Adam: Because we like said we wouldn’t or whatever.

Hannah: We did?

Adam: Uh, yah! You did.

Hannah: When did I say that?

Adam: Yesterday. You told me everything you want out of a relationship and all the ways I was fucking you up.

Hannah: Yeah, but then you kissed me.

Adam: You looked sad.

Hannah: Then we had sex.

Adam: Because we were kissing.

This is the part where women start screaming, “Dick! Douche! Asshole!” In hindsight, it’s clear that Hannah projected her own sense of empathy onto Adam. Big mistake. She also rationalized all of his previous behavior and chose to focus on what appeared to be a slight shift in the dynamic, a change for the better, a flipping of the player. In other words, Hannah was an idiot. But how could I be such an idiot?

My theory is that there is something hardwired in women. We want to nurture that which cries out for nurturing. We want to believe that when a man stares into our eyes, cups our face in his hands, and says something that sounds profound, he is having the same emotional experience that we are.

My thought process went something like this:

Adam is so disconnected, so heartless, such a dick! Hannah is such an idiot, I can’t stand watching her making a fool of herself all the time. He doesn’t even pretend to like her, why is she settling for that?

Oh look, Hannah is speaking her mind! She is telling Adam what she wants, and she is telling him how she feels. Oh wow, she just told him how much she cares about him, and how it’s causing her to feel so hurt by his indifference. She’s starting to cry. And she’s saying that she knows he won’t change. Adam is about to say, “OK, I get it” and close the door.

But wait! Adam is reaching out to Hannah. He pulls her to him, and he’s telling her that he has strong feelings about what she just said. He urges her (with passion!) to be herself. This time is different, I can feel it! He’s been taking advantage of Hannah because she allowed it, but now that she’s stood up for herself, he sees her in a new light. He respects her, and that’s sexy!

Plus, Adam might be a dick, but he can’t be that much of a dick. He can’t be that guy who sees a girl’s teary confessional as an opportunity to get it in. That would make him more than selfish, more than narcissistic even, that would make Adam a sociopath. And there really aren’t that many sociopaths around, right? Except on blogs?

It used to be that actions speak louder than words, but all bets are off. Actions and words can both be lies, lies, lies. If Lena Dunham is right, and sex is a battleground, you should arm yourself well and trust only one thing: the white flag of surrender. Trust, but verify. Until he calls you his girlfriend, no sex. Witnesses would be ideal. Because apparently even I can’t properly judge a cad anymore. There are just too many of them around.

My other favorite moments from this week’s episode:

Dunham disses the feminist doctrine of Male = Violence

It was subtle – maybe you missed it.

After getting really pissed at Hannah and Marnie re Hannah’s diary entry, Charlie sputters, “You know what? I wouldn’t even want to stay here if I wanted to.” He then upends the coffee table he made Marnie. As gentle Charlie finally shows some anger, Hannah shouts, “That’s the kind of thing you do right before you hit us. Don’t hit us! Don’t hit us!” With a “Fuck you!” he storms out of the apartment.

Charlie as the male who still prefers relationship sex

Charlie: You’re not in love with me.

Marnie: Are you in love with me?

Charlie: I don’t care!

Marnie: How can you not care?

Charlie: I decided on you, OK? Don’t you get it? I don’t wanna go fucking other girls then walk around feeling thrilled and then sad or empty or whatever. I like the smell of your hair and I like the sound of your voice and I fucking decided on you!

If only Charlie hadn’t followed up by begging Marnie during sex: “Don’t abandon me, don’t abandon me!”

This makes me sad.
I know you said ‘hold of the sex until official’, but how many guys are ok with that? Who seals the deal before knowing if you’re even sexually compatible? I don’t think a guy is an ass for feeling that way – I feel that way! And meeting a guy I genuinely like and feel like I can be with happens maybe once every second year, then I’m supposed to wait months before sex? That is celibacy. I know this is a cliche, but seriously, we don’t live forever.

Oh and I haven’t been following this blog long enough to know this – what exactly is the difference between a player and a cad?

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Marie

I know you said ‘hold of the sex until official’, but how many guys are ok with that? Who seals the deal before knowing if you’re even sexually compatible?

Seals the deal? It’s not marriage! It wasn’t so long ago that many people walked down the aisle with no idea whatsoever of sexual compatibility. Worst case scenario, you become exclusive and it doesn’t work so well. Problem solved by not announcing your new relationship on Facebook for two months.

Aw, don’t cry Susie. You’re not alone. He fooled me too. And it rankles me to say that that the guys knew better than we did. Of course trhat doesn’t mean that Hannah and Adam are over. I predict we will see several more rounds of this before one of them can’t stand the sick little dance they are doing together.

OffTheCuff

Sue: “It used to be that actions speak louder than words, but all bets are off.”

You were looking for the wrong actions. What, he kissed her? Yeah, to make her stop talking!

The actions to look for would him calling her, answering texts, spending non-sexual time with her, introducing her to friends, etc.

He had zero “boyfriend” actions.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@OTC

You were looking for the wrong actions. What, he kissed her? Yeah, to make her stop talking!

The actions to look for would him calling her, answering texts, spending non-sexual time with her, introducing her to friends, etc.

I acknowledge that. But since most relationships among young people start out with hooking up, both parties are guessing as to real intentions and desires even as they’re having sex. Yes, we can say “Stop hooking up!” but even the good guys are hooking up to get a relationship, and they’re witholding interest until they know the girl is into it – most Game bloggers say that having sex with her is an essential step in making her like you.

The result is that we wind up parsing every word, analyzing every facial expression and gesture, often with hilarious, or disastrous, results.

ExNewYorker

“He had zero “boyfriend” actions.”

Well, if he doesn’t look like a duck, doesn’t quack like a duck, doesn’t act like a duck, then he must be a duck

A guy interested in being “a boyfriend” will tend to do things that a boyfriend does.

That is the point of the post! I fell for Adam hook, line and sinker. I “read” his intentions with my female intuition, and I was dead wrong. I saw positive signs of real feeling where there was none.

It is precisely the same narrative we see in fairy tales, romance novels, romantic comedies and great dramas. I do not know how this might be evolutionarily adaptive, but it clearly is. Perhaps the female’s way of getting “sexy sons?”

Although we can see just how “faux” dominance can be. The idea of Adam as genetically superior in any way is ridiculous.

This is what I think last night’s episode was about–the girls’ search for control. Marnie doesn’t love Charlie, but she also did not want to be dumped. She wanted the break-up to be her choice (which only Ray was smart enough to see coming). Jessa did something similar. She essentially grudge-fcuked her ex for the crime of being the only man to have ever dumped her. She did not want him back, but she did want the schadenfreude of being able to crap up his new relationship and the “joy” of making him doubt his love for his new woman and her “superiority” over Jessa. Is it a good scenario in the longrun? No, but remember that Jessa constantly seeks to validate herself through sex. She takes a lot of satisfaction in her continuing attraction and her ability to throw a monkey wrench into her ex’s new “more mature” love.

Later, Hannah, under Jessa’s tutelage, decides to screw her boss because they are both ‘gross” and for “the story.” She thinks that she can come out on top of the sitiuation first by being the sexual aggressor, then by threatening a lawsuit and finally by threatening to ridicule him in an essay, but all that he can do is laugh and treat her like harmless child. She quits because it’s the only way she can win and goes off to Adam’s to hear how she doesn’t matter to Adam.

The masturbation scene is weird and puzzling. Hannah is angry because Adam has behaved as though she really wasn’t there but she quickly realizes that she has some weird little semblence of power by playing into his fantasy of being a “bad boy” put in his place by a dominant woman. Recall that last time, before he swept her into the apartnent, Adam said “I don’t like it when you talk to me like that,” as Hannah began to assert herself. His actions belied his words. This time, we see him reach orgasm as she calls him a “filthy boy,” bullies and takes his money (which presumably his nana sent him to purchase some shirts with). Hannah doesn’t get what she came for, boyfriendly compassion, but she comes away with something: $100 and the key to what makes Adam tick–a sense of being less than and a desire to be dominated. Additionally, Hannah and Adam share a sense of self-loathing. In her mind, Hannah won this round and connected with Adam to boot; she’ll be back.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@J

OK, time to dish.

Re Marnie and Charlie: I had a different sense. I thought that Marnie was afraid of venturing out into the nasty world of being a single 20-something woman in NYC. Remember, when she and Charlie meet, she is scared and vulnerable and asks him for hugs. I think that was the dynamic in their relationship. Over time, she’s become bored and wants more independence and adventure. But she was ambivalent about making the break – obviously, since she wouldn’t have done it at all if Hannah hadn’t “outed” her.

There were a couple of other signs that the relationship was comfortable and boring – all about her needs. First, WTF she has never been to Charlie’s apartment before? He spends every single night at her place. She has to beg Ray for his address. That’s mind boggling to me. Also, it’s very clear that she doesn’t give Charlie any blowjobs, and in a previous episode he referred to her dislike of sex from behind. I really don’t know why he’s been satisfied in the relationship – except that as he said, he decided on her. So he too seems plagued by inertia.

Re Hannah and boss: I did not understand this subplot *at all.* It would be one thing if the boss looked like Don Draper, but this guy was sooooo gross. I can’t imagine why she would suggest sex and say they’re both gross. Why have sex with someone repulsive “for the story?” Who but Jessa would even want to hear the story? And then when she asks him for $1,000? I was mortified – I agree with the commenter who observes that Hannah seems mentally unstable. That is truly psycho behavior.

Re Adam masturbation scene: Prior to now, we’ve gotten some pretty weird dirty talk from Adam, as he wanted to pretend Hannah was an 11 yo junkie with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox and then wanted to jizz on her arm in the shape of Africa. But this? Right before he comes, he asks her if she wants to step on his balls. Yikes! I agree that there’s a large degree of self-loathing there. Hmmm, now I’m back to thinking that Adam did in fact feel something tender for Hannah when she confessed her feelings, but has since retreated into emotionally unavailable mode.

The Walsh Hamster is strong with this one.

P.S. Could you believe how gay Hannah’s ex was at Oberlin? I thought that was hilarious.

Underdog

I linked this in the other post but it seems more applicable to this one.

It seems that women’s hamsters will project dad traits to cads under the right circumstances.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Underdog

Re the study of female hormones changing women’s judgment:

So it is about the wiring then.

For themselves, they thought the bad boy would reform and become a good dad just like the first experiment, when they were ovulating. “But not for other women, they could see right through him then,” Durante says.

The finding supports the notion that young women do delude themselves when the hormones are talking, says UCLA psychologist Martie Haselton, who was not part of the study. The women both know they want reliable men and realize that hormones might be influencing their feelings, so they rationalize those two things ” by reasoning that perhaps those sexy cads might actually be good dads.”

I was particularly fascinated by the correlation of this behavior with early onset of puberty:

An early onset of puberty in women has been tied in research to disparate factors, from hip width, to stress, to not having a father in the home. And it has been tied to a “fast-life” strategy in some women, who are more likely to try casual flings with men and have children at an earlier age.

That dovetails with research that shows that children of divorce are more avoidant in relationships and more likely to view the casual hookup as a positive experience.

ThoughtCriminal

“This time is different, I can feel it! He’s been taking advantage of Hannah because she allowed it, but now that she’s stood up for herself, he sees her in a new light. He respects her, and that’s sexy!”

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Is this really how women think? That’s the kind of stuff YOU like. When are women going to realize that pretty much the exact opposite of what you find attractive is what we find attractive? We don’t see a woman in a new light for standing up for herself. You want to know what turns men on,how we judge whether or not a woman is being sexy? We think to ourselves, “will this attitude or action by this woman get me laid?”,if the answer is “yes”,then the attitude or action gets more attention,if it is “no”,then we could care less what you’re doing.

How will a woman being more assertive get a man laid? It won’t,chances are it will do the opposite. Being more assertive gets HIM laid when HE does it.It doesn’t work for YOU.

Yes,he takes advantage of Hannah because she allows it. If she doesn’t allow it, he will simply find a girl who will. Nothing she does is going to improve her chances of marrying a douchebag. Why the hell anyone would WANT to marry a douchebag is a question for another time. It’s like spending all your time,money,and energy making square wheels,you’re never going to get anywhere with them.

Truthfully, you can’t call HIM the dick or asshole in this situation. Women are the reason why men in general are committing less. They caused it by acting in bad faith toward men.If he commits,all he gets is more of the same, and maybe a few extra bills to pay if she gets pregnant. However,SHE makes out like a bandit. I’m sure Jesus or Buddha would make that deal,but your average man needs a little incentive.

You know how you need to feel safe before being comfortable around a man? Well, a man needs to feel safe in a relationship before he invests in it.He needs to believe that it is secure,stable, and strong. What have women done to make men feel safe about investing in them? Nothing. Your greed for personal gain was judged to be more important than your need for human companionship. It’s called “opportunity cost”. It’s a business concept that stipulates that in order to get something,you have to give something up,I’m sure you’re not familiar with it,but you will need to learn it because some laws are immutable no matter how much people bend over backwards to spare you the trouble of facing reality.

If you want to get men, you have to give something up, that something is your twisted desire to possess for yourself the qualities nature endowed men with,namely the ability to provide for and protect oneself. If you do not do this,you will be having a defacto gay male relationship. In nature,men are considered largely superfluous. One is enough to get the job done in a relationship. The only thing a man needs you for is sex,reproduction, and the uniquely female qualities you bring to the table.

Even when men pair up,out of friendship,or the need to solve a problem,both men aren’t trying to “stand up for themselves” or whatever you imagine we do. One assumes the active role,planning,leading, and so forth, and the other assumes a more passive role, learning,executing,doing what the other says and maybe guarding against interlopers.

It is not considered a shameful role by us men, as many of us have no interest in taking responsibility and being crucified for a fuck up of some kind.

When women realize that what men admire in women is the opposite of what women find attractive in men,and that as much glory as is heaped upon a great leader,just as much danger and possibility for life-ending consequences is present,much confusion and animosity between the sexes will be nullified.

You’re not there yet. Judging by the actions of Eastern European women post-communism, I’d say we have about another 500 years before you ladies catch up to us in terms of realizing the things which form the substance of your gender-bending masturbatory fantasies are illusions constructed in your mind,similar to the things that you believe “grown-ups” are doing when you’re a child and have to eat your vegetables,go to school,and get to bed early.

You imagine adults spend all day flying around on jetpacks,hitting the clubs,partying it up,killing aliens and saving the world, when in reality they go to a shitty job,keep quiet, and do what they’re told for the most part while they dream of the freedom you experienced as a child.

All the things you believe men get to do or be are projections of your own unfulfilled desires. You make us the active vessels of all your unconscious and unfulfilled dreams, and ascribe to us your own motivations,lusts, foibles and shortcomings.

The reality is that we are NOTHING like you. We are the opposite of you. We gave up on the things you see as viable options when we were very young. Even the dreams that we had for ourselves,adjusted for reality after all of our youthful hope and ignorant imagination was crushed out of us,our sensible ambitions for ourselves, are only suffocated to death by you and your needs, and later the needs of our children with you.

If you want to get a picture of what is driving men,our inner ambitions and motivations,imagine a boot stamping on a little boy’s face forever.That is what our lives are.

J

I fell for Adam hook, line and sinker. I “read” his intentions with my female intuition, and I was dead wrong. I saw positive signs of real feeling where there was none.

Oh, no. There are real feelings; they just aren’t good or healthy, much less romantic. There’s a bond there–of shared lostness, loserhood and low self-esteem–but it isn’t love. Adam projects his self-loathing on to Hannah, who feels empathy and willingly takes it on because she doesn’t feel she deserves more.

INTJ

@Susan Walsh

I acknowledge that. But since most relationships among young people start out with hooking up, both parties are guessing as to real intentions and desires even as they’re having sex. Yes, we can say “Stop hooking up!” but even the good guys are hooking up to get a relationship, and they’re witholding interest until they know the girl is into it – most Game bloggers say that having sex with her is an essential step in making her like you.

I’m not hooking up. Neither are, I suspect, most good guys. Sure, many good guys have either read game or realized through experience that not being sexually aggressive is a good way to appear unattractive. But the majority of males are still in blue pill territory. The women who want nice guys should seek blue pill men, as these are easier to distinguish from cads.

INTJ

@J

Marnie doesn’t love Charlie, but she also did not want to be dumped. She wanted the break-up to be her choice (which only Ray was smart enough to see coming).

That’s an excellent observation (and I also did not see that coming). I had thought that when Charlie was breaking up with her she started panicking and valuing the relationship more (people tend to devalue things that they take for granted, and until then Charlie was definitely being taken for granted). I really didn’t want Charlie to give her another chance, because I figured Marnie would start acting the same way once the relationship was reestablished. I didn’t expect her to break up with him so promptly.

Zach

@ThoughtCriminal

Wow. A couple thoughts:

1) If you think your rant is new thinking, go back and read more of the older posts on this site. Start with “best posts”. Opportunity cost is not at all unfamiliar here.

2) This could possibly be the most pessimistic take on men I’ve ever read. Before you go off shouting “realist”, I couldn’t find a single male friend of mine who feels this way. Not one. So don’t go generalizing for what all of man’s experience is like. Or just start a revolution. Although not sure who your target is. The world? Life? Happiness?

M3

Adam isn’t any different than a hot girl who makes a beta orbit around her, sending out just enough signals to keep them close thinking they may have a shot, but never to allow them in.

A parallel of sorts. If only long suffering beta orbiting shmucks could be given the same cut loose approach. It’s a shame tho that when the beta shmuck pours his heart and soul out hoping the girl of his desire and dreams ‘gets it’… he gets hit with the ultimate guilt bait copout. “I don’t want to lose you as a friend.” They don’t even get the temporary validation of sex, only the guilt of being a bad guy if they stop being friends because they’re tormented by sexual attraction. But i digress, i’ve gone off point. At least here Adam gives her enough to go on to let her voluntarily cut her loose by being the douchebag (unless she now chooses to continue getting used in hopes of changing him which we know will fail).

Still, i find this refreshing. I haven’t watched any of this (or any regular TV in ages since its so mind numbingly horrid) i thought this show would just be more typical tripe. To actively see this little canard of female fantasy blown open and apart has piqued my curiosity that now i may require to watch.

Adam’s a dick but he never lied, he didn’t have to. As ExNewYorker put it best, she deluded herself into believing something that was not, and got the wake up call the next day.

Chase the wolf, and be surprised that it bit you instead of turning into a fuzzy puppy. How odd. Personally, the whole meme of chasing the cad trying to nurture it into something docile to worship only the turner has been played out. Glad to see TV starting to reflect reality (instead of reality shows that do not reflect real life).

J

That’s an excellent observation

Thanks!

(and I also did not see that coming). I had thought that when Charlie was breaking up with her she started panicking and valuing the relationship more ….Marnie would start acting the same way once the relationship was reestablished. I didn’t expect her to break up with him so promptly.

I think even Marnie surprised herself. I think she does place some value on the relationship because of post-break-up panic as you say, but it’s the magic words “I love you” that send her into a panic. Even she may not realize how much she doesn’t love him until he demands it of her.

It’s interesting that in the episode that Charlie begins to made demands and it ends his relationship, while Hannah makes demands and gets something from Adam.

VD

He pulls her to him, and he’s telling her that he has strong feelings about what she just said. He urges her (with passion!) to be herself. This time is different, I can feel it! He’s been taking advantage of Hannah because she allowed it, but now that she’s stood up for herself, he sees her in a new light. He respects her, and that’s sexy!

This was tremendously amusing, Susan! No man, in the history of the sexes, has ever respected a woman because she stood up for herself. Women are solipsistic, by and large, and so stomping their feet and demanding their way all the time is pretty much what most men expect women to do. So, a submissive woman deciding to stand up for herself does nothing more than make her like all the other women in whom a man isn’t interested. Remember, women are attracted to dominance and men are attracted to submission. When she stood up for herself, he correctly read their previous casual relationship as being over and had one for the road.

This can’t be emphasized enough. Men are as attracted to female submission as women are attracted to male dominance. And the attraction happens regardless of our ideological commitments.

By the way, I’ve bolded the obvious tell: Hannah: Adam. I told him everything, how he was torturing me, how sad I was, and he responded in such a lovely way…he like kissed me and kissed me and kissed me and he said, “Be who you are” and he touched my face and like we’re basically together now.

Classic player talk. It actually sounds rather like Roissy. The entire goal of the player in these situations is to say something that confirms her emotional state without actually committing him to anything. He could have said any number of things: “You’re so very special to me”, “I really feel complete when I’m with you”, “You make me want to be a better person”, “I don’t know what I’d do without you”, or old classic “I really feel close to you right now”. If a man says things like that without making any concrete commitments like “I will not have sex with other women”, the chances are very high that he is a reasonably accomplished player.

You’d be surprised at how many players will not lie to women in their stables, or at least, will not lie unless severely pressed. But they’re adept at being very misleading without ever actually lying.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@VD

This was tremendously amusing, Susan! No man, in the history of the sexes, has ever respected a woman because she stood up for herself.

So if I can make that error after three years of writing, reading and discussing sex differences, you can imagine where that leaves your average female 20 year old.

One reason I thought this, though, was because I’ve heard guys in the ‘sphere say many times: Men treat women the way they demand to be treated. So, demand respect and you’ll get it, or get ignored. Be a chump, and you’ll get taken for a ride. Also, “Women get the men they deserve.” If women are entirely submissive, they cede all control to men to make that call.

Perhaps a man doesn’t desire a woman who stands up for herself, but surely he can respect it?

You’d be surprised at how many players will not lie to women in their stables, or at least, will not lie unless severely pressed. But they’re adept at being very misleading without ever actually lying.

I wouldn’t be surprised, actually, I’m well aware of it. In this case, I think I sensed a shift the way that Hannah did. Of course, the show is written by a woman, so her intent may have been successfully read by women viewers, and left male viewers with a different impression, as in this case.

Cooper

THANK YOU for the spoiler alert. I will have to return after catching episode 5.

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Chase the wolf, and be surprised that it bit you instead of turning into a fuzzy puppy. How odd. Personally, the whole meme of chasing the cad trying to nurture it into something docile to worship only the turner has been played out. Glad to see TV starting to reflect reality (instead of reality shows that do not reflect real life).

I’m not so sure for every Girls there is a dozen other shows that show the “changed man for the love of a good woman” trope. Heck even Disney’s latest princes have been “reformed womanizers” I do hope is just the last days of the trope but I doubt it.

@Susan
Don’t be so hard on yourself, we are only human after all. Just remember this next time you say one of the guys here that you want them as sons in law…;)

http://karinamuller.livejournal.com Karina

Hannah is such an idiot… These alpha-males like Adam only wants to sleep with the girls, they don’t need any relationship or a soulmate. The all are egoists and only care about themselves. But I think it wasn’t the last mistake of Hannah…

J

@VD #18

I think we all agree that Hannah got played in terms of getting a bf/gf relationship (though she did get her first orgasm out of that episode). Out of curiosity, how do you think Hannah should have handled it? Would submission have gotten her the relationship she wanted? Or should she have just walked away? Also, do you think that Adam is an accomplished player, a guy who simply doesn’t give a damn what happens and who simply goes with the flow, or a primitive lout who just gets lucky? And why didn’t he wait for her to leave to masturbate?

Ramble

Susan, I have never seen Tiny furniture and I have never seen Girls, but, you have posted a few picture of Lena Dunham and she does not look good in one photo (I am not implying that is your fault).

I watched the clip you uploaded and she looked pretty bad in it. I am not trying to be too mean, but she is fairly unattractive. I wasn’t prepared for that. After hearing her interview on Fresh Air, I figured that she would be, at least, average looking.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Ramble

I watched the clip you uploaded and she looked pretty bad in it. I am not trying to be too mean, but she is fairly unattractive. I wasn’t prepared for that. After hearing her interview on Fresh Air, I figured that she would be, at least, average looking.

It’s true, Lena Dunham is not a babe. But neither is Adam – I’d say she’s hooking up in her own SMV range. One of the things I like about the show is that it does depict the real-life ups and downs of average looking people, who have sex and relationships just like everyone else.

Ramble

Heck even Disney’s latest princes have been “reformed womanizers”

Why do you think that is?

J

@Ramble

She’s unattractive in her roles, more attractive in interviews. I don’t know if they ugly her up for roles, pretty her up for interviews, or some combination of the two, but nither Hannah or Aura are supposed to be pretty.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

I don’t know if they ugly her up for roles, pretty her up for interviews, or some combination of the two,

I think it’s a combination. I’ve seen her in some pics taken at premieres, and she looks her best, I think. During the interview she gives right after the episode, I think they have way too much makeup on her. She looks about 50, IMO. She appears to be wearing almost no makeup in the show, and they consistently choose clothing that does not flatter her body. That striped dress in episode 5 looked like a circus tent!

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Why do you think that is?

God hates me? I’m a big Disney princess movies fan so I’m not enjoying this trend one bit. Seriously it probably reflects that the reign of the asshole has reached its peak and modern women can’t stand a nice guy even if they have money and looks, YMMV.

Lavazza

“It is precisely the same narrative we see in fairy tales, romance novels, romantic comedies and great dramas. I do not know how this might be evolutionarily adaptive, but it clearly is. Perhaps the female’s way of getting “sexy sons?” ”

Hehe! So intelligent women should choose stupidly because that will give her sons that will reproduce with stupid women, which are the majority. Wheras if she chooses intelligently she will have sons who only are attractive to the small niche market of intelligent women.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Lavazza

Hehe! So intelligent women should choose stupidly because that will give her sons that will reproduce with stupid women, which are the majority. Wheras if she chooses intelligently she will have sons who only are attractive to the small niche market of intelligent women.

It makes no sense to me either.

M3

“Out of curiosity, how do you think Hannah should have handled it? Would submission have gotten her the relationship she wanted? Or should she have just walked away?”

She should never have selected him to start with, or once she started her verbal tirade of what an asshole he was, that should have been enough for her to walk away from it. He was not relationship material and she talked herself into thinking it could. She wasn’t telling him how she felt to make him understand he was an asshole, she was trying to break him to feel guilty about being an asshole (to her only) and commit to her. Shoulda walked, not talked.

It’s like she wanted the sports car that gets shitty gas mileage because it’s exciting, and overlooked all the semi sporty but fuel efficient cars around her that could go the distance. Then when the car runs out of gas, she gets upset and asks the dealer to change out the engine of the car to a more fuel efficient model. Sorry darling, that car does 5 miles to the gallon because that’s what it was built for, likes to do and why people who like it like it.

A classic lesson in selection criteria. Select smarter.

JP

“I know you said ‘hold of the sex until official’, but how many guys are ok with that? Who seals the deal before knowing if you’re even sexually compatible? ”

I didn’t know that there was such a concept as “sexually compatible”.

I’ve had sex with a grand total of one person. And that was when I was 25 (?!). I would guess that it was 1999.

After all, fornication = profound moral evil. Kind of like murder.

In hindsight, this might not have been the best moral position to adopt.

Ramble

She’s unattractive in her roles, more attractive in interviews. I don’t know if they ugly her up for roles, pretty her up for interviews…

I should note that when I mentioned her interview on Fresh Air, that Fresh Air is a radio program. I never actually saw Lena Dunham until Susan starting posting pictures of the show.

http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

This time is different, I can feel it!

Susan, your words? I have to admit – I’m a little surprised.

I haven’t been able to keep up with the episodes, but it seems like the Hannah character (and you, by extension) think and wish that the cad, Adam, will change. You know that’s not going to happen. Did you miss that he said he wouldn’t and never said he would?

Perhaps I’m mistaken here, but I didn’t see any much of any lying. I did see a lot of wishful thinking, questionable judgment and some pretty callous actions on Adam’s part. Let me quantify that. If I had ever met an “Adam” IRL, I wouldn’t have much to do with him.

Come to think of it, I have, and I didn’t.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Joe

Perhaps I’m mistaken here, but I didn’t see any much of any lying. I did see a lot of wishful thinking, questionable judgment and some pretty callous actions on Adam’s part.

What can I say? I got sucked into the fantasy that Adam could or would change. I agree that he didn’t lie. He didn’t even try to mislead her. Dunham makes that clear when she tells Jessa how she knows they are “pretty much together now.” We hear her explanation about his kissing and kissing, telling her to be herself, etc. and we laugh and groan. We know exactly what’s coming.

This is why I said I have a theory that women just can’t resist this stuff. Now, to be fair, I would never have gotten involved with an Adam. Never. But I understand how Hannah thought he was saying he liked her. And I’ve also seen some of these unhappy couplings turn into serious relationships, believe it or not. That’s the tricky part – some of these douches do in fact get reformed. Personally, I’d rather take a good man than a reformed asshole, but we see clearly that not all women make the same choice.

J

@M3

I agree that Adam is a poor relationship choice, but I don’t see him as the jazzy sports car; he’s a lemon. He looks good in the showroom, but you can’t drive him out of his apartment. Charlie is “semi-sporty but fuel efficient,” but Hannah wouldn’t feel good enough for him.

I asked the question because I wanted to know what, if anything, Hannah’s being submissive to him would accomplish.

Emily

>> “God hates me? I’m a big Disney princess movies fan so I’m not enjoying this trend one bit. Seriously it probably reflects that the reign of the asshole has reached its peak and modern women can’t stand a nice guy even if they have money and looks, YMMV.”

I double co-sign all of this. I LOVE Disney movies, but I’m not a fan of this trend. Is this really the model of “idealized romance” that we want to send to little girls?

…the exception to this is the opening montage in UP, which was adorable

http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Marie, you can find out a lot about sexual compatibility before getting into bed with someone. My husband and I talked for over a month before doing anything physical.

There’s nothing wrong with being “celibate” before a real emotional connection happens. Another word for it is “chaste” and guys prefer such girls for relationships.

Plus the build-up and anticipation are a lot of fun. Susan posted some study that suggested men fall deeper in love when they are made to wait.

http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com Mule Chewing Briars

If anything has made me nervous after all the time spent on boards like these, it is the realization that women have an almost limitless ability to deceive themselves when they are physically attracted to a man. Of course, the female brain just doesn’t experience it as “physical attraction”. With all those extra nerve fibers crossing the corpus callosum, it could only feel like a deep spiritual connection.

This is where I am in constant vigilance concerning my daughter. She narrowly dodged two Adams because of the diligence of her brother and her father. She fell hard for another one who was able to deceive even us (his Xbox and mud-bogging truck may have had something to do with it), but turned out to have a very unattractive jealous streak.

But she can lie to herself with the best of them.

Re: all of the stuff I have been reading at Baggage Reclaim: I like Natalie’s advice that women need to work on themselves rather than the men in their lives, but do you really think the problem is one of low self-image like she does? She seems to place all female problems on “not loving yourself enough”, whereas it has been my idea that good self-image just makes women susceptible to a better-looking species of cad.

There is no algorithm that will keep an Adam from breaking a Hanna’s heart. Not even a wedding ring.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Mule

She seems to place all female problems on “not loving yourself enough”, whereas it has been my idea that good self-image just makes women susceptible to a better-looking species of cad.

I haven’t read the blog, but I think this advice is questionable. Working on oneself in a real way to develop and improve? That’s great, but it’s important to see oneself as a work in progress.

Good self-image can come from that, but we’ve seen a generation of women handed unearned self-esteem. We tell every girl that she is fabulous, beautiful and smart, regardless of her natural gifts.

I recall once hearing a teacher say that all children are equally gifted and very gifted. If that’s true, then everyone gets an A+ and everyone has high self-esteem. How is that tenable once adulthood is reached?

ExNewYorker

@Anacaona

“Seriously it probably reflects that the reign of the asshole has reached its peak and modern women can’t stand a nice guy even if they have money and looks, YMMV.”

Total douchebag domination?

The sad part is that, these days, it better to err on the side of douchebag than nice guy, since the latter won’t even get on the train (I’m not an asshole, but I play one on tv)…

Marie

Hope:
I hope I don’t come across as someone who encourages jumping into bed with someone too soon. I can definitely pick up the sexual energy between me and a man without sleeping with him and I also believe in some degree of waiting. Men – and maybe especially successful men in high status positions – know that good things don’t come easy.

What I mean is, in response to the situation in Girls Susan mentioned, I don’t think there is a fool-proof recipe. I think Hannah acted immature and very foolishly, she didn’t do a proper confrontation at all. But then again, he could have replied “I want to be with you only”, they’d sleep together, and he’d still ditch her. And say something like, “I do want you, but I thought about what you said and maybe it’s for the best that we’re not together…”. Or whatever. There’s always a way out.

I’ve played by the “actions speak louder than words” rule, I’ve also been rather cynical. The last guy I’ve been dating seem really fed up with my drama, and recently said “if you refuse to trust me, what can I do?”. Nothing. The majority of men, at least with his options, are capable of treating women like shit, and he must suffer for it. If I really want things to work for us, I need to let go, surrender and trust him. In the end, a great deal of nights up crying will happen for most of us, and I’m starting to think it’s just part of the dating process. You need to let go and sometimes you get screwed over out of the blue and maybe some time it’ll work out.
At least if you’re trying actively to meet someone. I need to start now as I am, quote Susan, “approaching my mid-twenties” 😉

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Marie

The last guy I’ve been dating seem really fed up with my drama, and recently said “if you refuse to trust me, what can I do?”. Nothing. The majority of men, at least with his options, are capable of treating women like shit, and he must suffer for it. If I really want things to work for us, I need to let go, surrender and trust him. In the end, a great deal of nights up crying will happen for most of us, and I’m starting to think it’s just part of the dating process. You need to let go and sometimes you get screwed over out of the blue and maybe some time it’ll work out.

This is why I feel so saddened by the “combat dating” culture we’ve got. It’s every man for himself, all is fair in love and war, etc. etc. It’s no wonder that so many women and men are on the sidelines.

One 24 yo woman shared a story with me today. For a month a guy has been trying to get together with her. His friends have talked to her about how much he likes her, and he has been demonstrating consistent interest. At least among his friends, he has a reputation for being a good guy and not P&Ding girls. Last weekend, he told her how much he likes her and they went out alone on Sunday. She wound up spending the night and they had sex. She told me that it was definitely pre-commitment, but that she felt she was making a good bet. She thought the sex was very good, and in the morning, things seemed fine. Not only did she not hear from him all week, but when she saw him out Saturday night, he avoided her. She asked him point blank what was up, and he said, “What’s up is that I want to party!” and walked away. He seemed to have morphed into an asshole! She is bewildered. Was she bad in bed? Why did he do a 180? If he didn’t want a relationship, then why did he act like he was pursuing something real for a month, rather than a casual hookup? He paved the way, then took another road. Like you, she understands that I’m saying “no sex before monogamy” but she says she feels sure that if she’d rebuffed him that night it would have been done, because they’d been hanging out for a month already. It was lose-lose from the start.

VD

Out of curiosity, how do you think Hannah should have handled it? Would submission have gotten her the relationship she wanted? Or should she have just walked away? Also, do you think that Adam is an accomplished player, a guy who simply doesn’t give a damn what happens and who simply goes with the flow, or a primitive lout who just gets lucky? And why didn’t he wait for her to leave to masturbate?

I couldn’t possibly say. I have never seen Girls. I was simply responding to Susan’s comments; the redirection in the “be who you are” comment was almost straight out of Roissy and is the sort of thing a player would say. Adam is a fictional construction, so it’s entirely possible that his character is inconsistent in using player dialogue his real life counterpart would not.

J

@SW

OK, time to dish.

Tee hee! Let’s!

Re Marnie and Charlie: I had a different sense. I thought that Marnie was afraid of venturing out into the nasty world of being a single 20-something woman in NYC.

That too is a factor, I agree.

Remember, when she and Charlie meet, she is scared and vulnerable and asks him for hugs. …. obviously, since she wouldn’t have done it at all if Hannah hadn’t “outed” her.

Yes, absolutely!

First, WTF she has never been to Charlie’s apartment before? He spends every single night at her place. She has to beg Ray for his address. That’s mind boggling to me.

Me too. WTF?

Also, it’s very clear that she doesn’t give Charlie any blowjobs, and in a previous episode he referred to her dislike of sex from behind.

Yet, she was willing to blow him and unable to love him. Wow!

I really don’t know why he’s been satisfied in the relationship – except that as he said, he decided on her.

And what was that all about? That line confused me. Do men make a decision, and then that’s that and emotion plays no part? Yet, in the midst of their “lovemaking,” he says “I love you.” Has he said it before? Or maybe, he doesn’t say it until he feels that she’s really back.

Re Hannah and boss: I did not understand this subplot *at all.*

Yeah, when I saw the preview, I thought that Hannah was going to offer sex and that he would get scared at having her call his bluff and stop being handsy with the women. What actually happened surprised me.

Why have sex with someone repulsive “for the story?”

Because she’s a writer? And wants to experience things?

Who but Jessa would even want to hear the story?

Jessa and her “adventurousness” impress Hannah.

And then when she asks him for $1,000? I was mortified

I think it’s about control and winning. Did you notice that after Charlie leaves the girls’ apartment, Hannah asks Marnie if she’d had like the essay as a piece of writing and not something about her?

She wanted to get something out of the deal: validation, severance pay, damages, the satisfaction of humiliating him later in an essay. Something, I don’t think it mattered what; she just wanted to be a “winner” like Jessa. Otherwise, I have no idea what.

Re Adam masturbation scene: Prior to now, we’ve gotten some pretty weird dirty talk from Adam… I agree that there’s a large degree of self-loathing there. Hmmm, now I’m back to thinking that Adam did in fact feel something tender for Hannah when she confessed her feelings, but has since retreated into emotionally unavailable mode.

Yeah, he’s “quite the little perv,” as Jessa might say. I doubt he will ever make a good bf for Hannah, for perhaps for anyone, but there is definitely a bond of self-loathing and a desire for her to join him in loserhood–like when he says that God obviously has other plans for him and Hannah than being employed.

The Walsh Hamster is strong with this one.

Meh. If you are predicting marriage, you’re hamsterwheeling. If you think there’s more than sex, like interlocking neurosis, you’re correct.

P.S. Could you believe how gay Hannah’s ex was at Oberlin? I thought that was hilarious.

I was in hysterics! Especially when he wanted to dance.

Herb

@J

And why didn’t he wait for her to leave to masturbate?

Because “The Stranger” is better than straight masturbation and an actual person ib better than “The Stranger”.

She narrowly dodged two Adams because of the diligence of her brother and her father.

Great job, Dad!!!

but do you really think the problem is one of low self-image like she does? She seems to place all female problems on “not loving yourself enough”, whereas it has been my idea that good self-image just makes women susceptible to a better-looking species of cad

Yes, but I mean a true sense of one’s value as opposed to “I’m too pretty to learn math.” Of course, a woman also needs to be generous to reciprocate when she does find a great guy. Conceit and entitlement aren’t self- worth

J

@Herb

So you think he wanted her to “lend a hand”? I thought he wanted to degrade her and that she turned the table on him as she had attempted unsuccessfully to do with her boss.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

I thought he wanted to degrade her and that she turned the table on him as she had attempted unsuccessfully to do with her boss.

Interesting, I hadn’t made that connection. I did think she discovered the one and only area where she dominates Adam. She had the power to make him desperate, and you can see that realization dawn on her face. She enjoys being the dom to his sub.

Herb

@Emily

…the exception to this is the opening montage in UP, which was adorable

Not just the opening montage but the emotional climax when he finally sees the note she left him at the end of the scrapbook.

The fact that our culture as a whole would call that relationship boring (and we would…for crying out loud we don’t even make movies about it, just opening montages) is sad.

Because “Girls” doesn’t exist in a world where Carl and Ellie do and vice versa.

I used to look for the door into that other reality but sadly until I invent a time machine I won’t find it.

http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Marie, okay I think I see what you mean now. Personally the question I would ask, is he willing to say “I love you” to your face, unflinchingly, sincerely? If a guy doesn’t love you (what Charlie referred to as “decided on you”), he can walk at any time, change his mind at any time, and say “I like you a lot but I want to keep things cool.” And really there’s nothing you can do. The only power you have is to walk away and find someone else.

But make no mistake. That is actually a tremendous amount of power in your hands. It’s not power over the other person, but over your own destiny and future. I have said goodbye to guys who would have made me miserable, and without those goodbyes, I would not have said hello to the man I am absolutely in love with and for whom I changed my last name.

http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Susan, my husband is a dominant and non-feminist man, and he is always trying to get me to stand up for myself and be more “assertive” (his word). I think it depends entirely on if the guy cares about her as a person or just as an instrument of pleasure.

He enjoys watching me learn new things, handle tasks, and be competent, because as he put it, I’m on his team, and if I’m strong, then his team is stronger for it. He respects genuine internal strength in a woman.

Herb

@J

So you think he wanted her to “lend a hand”? I thought he wanted to degrade her and that she turned the table on him as she had attempted unsuccessfully to do with her boss.

I think he wanted a warm hole not shaped by his fingers.

Navy story time…

My first boat we had this guy whose “pet name” for his girl friend was “Cum Dumpster” as in he called her that in public. I remember a party where he yelled across a crowded room with plenty of women as well as men in it, “Hey, Cum Dumpster, come here” just to prove to us she’d answer to it.

Why did he keep her around? He’s philosophy was “if you’re not getting laid, lower your standards.” I can’t speak to any self-loathing on his part but I know he viewed her as little more than a mobile, warm, and self-cleaning sex doll.

I haven’t watched “Girls” but from what everyone says that’s what I figure Adam sees in Hannah and still does.

Not sure how you get more degrading than that.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

I think he wanted a warm hole not shaped by his fingers.

No, she offered that and he turned it down. He wanted to masturbate for her, and he wanted her to take control. When she starts making demands, he gets really, really turned on.

J

Yikes, Herb! That’s one heck of a story. Wow!

http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Susan, as I’ve been saying, there’s no guarantee with “I like you.” Only “I love you” backed up by action can mean anything nowadays.

In her case, making him wait until commitment would have been the right move regardless. It’s quite possible he was doing the “lying by omission” thing, and if she asked him to literally vocalize it, he would have backed off.

Gambling with sex is never a good idea, and guys don’t respect it either. It’s better to err on the side of too much caution than too little.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Hope

In her case, making him wait until commitment would have been the right move regardless. It’s quite possible he was doing the “lying by omission” thing, and if she asked him to literally vocalize it, he would have backed off.

Gambling with sex is never a good idea, and guys don’t respect it either. It’s better to err on the side of too much caution than too little.

Agree 100%, but I do think it’s odd that he presented as going for a relationship, then did a 180 after sex. Does a guy spend a month just for a conquest? Obviously, his remark about wanting to party makes it clear he is an immature idiot and terrible guy, so she clearly thought more of him than he deserved for that month.

Iggles

This is the part where women start screaming, “Dick! Douche! Asshole!”

Nope. I laughed! But then again, I agreed with the guys that Adam made no promises to Hannah. Totally. Saw. It. Coming!

http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Susan, I can’t pretend to know what guys like that think. It’s possible that he did “like” her, was evaluating her for potential, but didn’t fall in love with her, so he decided to bolt and make a clean break.

If he wasn’t in love before the sex, the sex isn’t going to make him fall in love. If he was in love before the sex, then not having sex is not going to cause him to fall out of love either. This is why it’s a foolish gamble.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

If he wasn’t in love before the sex, the sex isn’t going to make him fall in love. If he was in love before the sex, then not having sex is not going to cause him to fall out of love either. This is why it’s a foolish gamble.

that, but we’ve seen a generation of women handed unearned self-esteem.

That’s the key. It’s not real self-worth that’s the problem. It’s the unrealistic stuff which I actually think makes things worth. Telling every kid who can ay “Twinkle, Twinkle” that he’s Mozart, just makes kids feel bad that they aren’t prodigies. It deprives of of the realistic progress they could make if they put the work in.

She had the power to make him desperate, and you can see that realization dawn on her face. She enjoys being the dom to his sub.

That’s why I say this episode was about control.

BTW, I just dropped you an email.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@J

That’s why I say this episode was about control.

Yes, I just watched it again with my husband, and Lena D. explicitly states that Marnie wants to be in control of the breakup. I think the “SMP as battleground” metaphor is apt here. It’s all a struggle to be the one calling the shots.

J

makes things worth=makes things worse

pvw

Susan:

One 24 yo woman shared a story with me today. For a month a guy has been trying to get together with her. His friends have talked to her about how much he likes her, and he has been demonstrating consistent interest. At least among his friends, he has a reputation for being a good guy and not P&Ding girls. Last weekend, he told her how much he likes her and they went out alone on Sunday. She wound up spending the night and they had sex. She told me that it was definitely pre-commitment, but that she felt she was making a good bet. She thought the sex was very good, and in the morning, things seemed fine. Not only did she not hear from him all week, but when she saw him out Saturday night, he avoided her.

Agree 100%, but I do think it’s odd that he presented as going for a relationship, then did a 180 after sex. Does a guy spend a month just for a conquest? Obviously, his remark about wanting to party makes it clear he is an immature idiot and terrible guy, so she clearly thought more of him than he deserved for that month.

My thoughts:

But what if he saw her as slutty because she put out so easily? Yes, he has been trying to get to her, they went out once, I presume their first time out together on their own, their first date, and she puts out? I’m guessing that the other instances they saw/talked to each other involved socializing in groups?

Definitely pre-commitment, or wishful thinking? Did he talk about what he was interested in? Did she raise it, discuss the implications of sleeping together?

And going back to the show, if she wanted to talk, she should have kept it in the realm of pure discussion, not her in effect crying about her fears and being put into too much of a vulnerable position as he put her into–let her create a whole scenario in her mind out of wishful thinking. Not at his apartment, but perhaps in a neutral setting?

Didn’t the actress in real life say that she used to look at SATC and think that was reflective of real life? This leads to the overly emotional thinking that is not grounded in reality–living based on hopeful fantasy. I hardly watch television any more, but how in the world has things come to that? Growing up, I was told by my parents that the shows I saw on television were fictional and not to be taken seriously–pure fantasy and silliness, to be laughed at, critiqued and not used as a model for real life.

Iggles

@ SW:

Re Marnie and Charlie: I had a different sense. I thought that Marnie was afraid of venturing out into the nasty world of being a single 20-something woman in NYC.

I agree. Being suddenly single again after a long relationship – especially one that started in college – is really scary! Even when you know you should break, that person is a huge part of your life. It’s a case of feel more comfortable with “the devil you know” even though neither of you are getting your needs met.

As much as I would hate to be lumped in with Marnie (I think she’s pretty selfish/horrible), I do share a similarity here with her. Her drawn out, ‘comfortable’ relationship with Charlie reminds me of how my first relationship was at the end. We also started dating in college. Dating in NYC is a completely different animal!

VD

One reason I thought this, though, was because I’ve heard guys in the ‘sphere say many times: Men treat women the way they demand to be treated. So, demand respect and you’ll get it, or get ignored. Be a chump, and you’ll get taken for a ride. Also, “Women get the men they deserve.” If women are entirely submissive, they cede all control to men to make that call.

You’re conflating behavior and attraction here. Submission is an attractive trait to men, even if they deplore the concept for ideological reasons. That’s why we think of a demure woman as being intrinsically attractive, but it’s hard to even conceive of a demure man.

Perhaps a man doesn’t desire a woman who stands up for herself, but surely he can respect it?

Why? Look at it from a man’s perspective. To which sex does the “honey-do” list refer? To women, standing up for yourself primarily means demanding that others provide you services upon demand and alter their behavior to suit you. More of that isn’t something to respect, it’s something to avoid at all costs.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

To women, standing up for yourself primarily means demanding that others provide you services upon demand and alter their behavior to suit you.

In this case, Hannah stood up by herself by saying what she wanted in a relationship, and that she didn’t want to share a sex partner. And that she was going home. She didn’t demand or even ask Adam for anything. She just said that she wasn’t going to stick around and be treated this way anymore.

Of course, she did stick around, so it was all moot.

Marie

Susan: I’d love your opinion on my situation with a guy as I feel like it’s a bit in the gray area. Is there anywhere I can send it? It’s mostly a simple “what to do now” situation. I feel like I’m getting mixed messages from friends, as I have some extremely cynical and some that are overly romantic. Perhaps you’ll find it useful as a lesson for others

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Marie

You can email me at walsh dot susan1 at gmail.

Zach

@susan 56

Re your story, thats not surprising at all. Pursuing for a month meant nothing, because from the sound of it, he wasnt really pursuing. Did he go out of his way in any way shape or form to see her? And all the bits about nice guy et were his friends lying for him. I guarantee she bought it hook line and sinker because thats what she wanted to believe. Ive seen this before. One girl friend of mine had a similar situation (in fact almost identical). However, I was able to help her dodge it. Guy was way too good looking and fratty not to be a player. Needless to say, i was right and his friends were lying for him. No judgement on my part, ive done it too, and had it done for me, but shes my friend so i was gonna tell her the truth. Girls ability to believe what they want to despite every piece of evidence to the contrary still stuns me.

Dogsquat

@susan re: one month seduction:

Maybe that guy decided the girl wasn’t all that attractive after they’d done the deed. Sure, the girl thought everything went well, but that’s only her opinion. She could have been shooting herself in the foot the whole time. Maybe she’s a boring conversationalist, benefits disproportionately from Spanx and push-up bras, and was rocking a smelly dingleberry.

Any one of these things the guy could have accepted, but all three? Pshhh…why bother? I’ve said this before on HUS but it gets glossed over:

JP

I’m still trying to figure out how people who are players don’t end up overwhelmed with guilt to the point they are non-functional.

My dating problems (with respect to my adventures resulting in emotional injury to women) were generally caused by by my complete disconnect with or inability to manage my own internal emotional state or my ignorance with respect to the human condition not out of some desire to manipulate somebody for sex.

A Definite Beta Guy

Re: Susan’s story

The guy had sex with a girl he really likes and feels like he is top of the world now. The girl in your story elevated his status much in the same way a girl can feel herself being elevated by sleeping with a hot guy.

As he is now a higher value, he no longer sees this girl as attractive. And he wants to dabble in other pools. He was not emotionally attached enough before the sex happened, and probably was never going to be.

For the record, guys will wait longer than a month. Well, my rule is a month after a commitment has been decided on. Any longer and it’s offensive.

To Marie:

Gray to me implies darkness.
And yeah, darkness can be sexy. That element of danger and uncertainty, plus it makes even ugly people look better. Mmmmm.
Thing about danger?
Sometimes situations can actually be dangerous. Especially when you are dealing with men. Men are animals. Except worse, because some men are amazing manipulators. And not even Susan can defend herself against one, so you sure as HELL do not have a PRAYER. Darkness? Yeah. Police tell you to avoid darkness, because that’s when you get stabbed and never see it coming.
Stay.
Away.
From.
Ambigious.
Situations.
With.
Men.
Period.

Also relevant to the story:
Yes, Adam feels a bit of something. I suspect most players do, that’s why they put all this effort into chasing women instead of jacking it. It’s a LOT of work to be a player, it’s a lot of work to be even moderately attractive to women this day and age if you aren’t already a natural. SOMETHING positive must be there to motivate all that work.

That doesn’t mean a goddam THING about emotional commitment. I also feel really excited about my lawnmower, it doesn’t mean I want to fucking MARRY the thing, and you can bet your ass I am going to toss it out if it starts malfunctioning.

http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

@ Susan
“Adam: You shouldn’t do that.

Hannah: Why?

Adam: Because we like said we wouldn’t or whatever.”

At least, as a player, he said something. He easily could have just let her do her thing, while completely ignoring her like she wasn’t in the room. Any hardcore dick would have done that and let her wheels spin.

@ Vox and Susan on the submission vs respect thing

“Also, “Women get the men they deserve.” If women are entirely submissive, they cede all control to men to make that call.

Perhaps a man doesn’t desire a woman who stands up for herself, but surely he can respect it?”

I think you’re confusing the cause and effect that happens in a man’s brain.

We are attracted to submission. It is completely compartmentalized to be separate from respect.

Respect would come from her choice in the submission. If we think we’re a good choice for her and she submitted at a good time for the relationship, that will go towards earning our respect. If we think we’re a poor choice for her, she submitted too early, put out too early…. she will lose respect and it will work against her earning it in the future.

Those are by no means a comprehensive list, but simply some small examples. The respect is a much more complicated situation that the attraction to submission. Who she is, her accomplishments, how she holds herself, if she’d judgmental… pretty much everything about her will be considered when we decide whether or not to respect a woman. Many can submit and be sexually appealing for it; few will earn our respect while doing so.

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I double co-sign all of this. I LOVE Disney movies, but I’m not a fan of this trend. Is this really the model of “idealized romance” that we want to send to little girls?

Of course we shouldn’t but then I don’t think all is lost both Cinderella prince and Little Mermaid Eric were featured stronger as great guys in their sequels and I still remember sweet nerdy Milo getting the princess in Journey to Atlantis and of course my Team Edward friends so I just hope is just an experiment and next prince goes back to “sweet guy” and not cad in sheep’s clothes.

…the exception to this is the opening montage in UP, which was adorable

Oh yeah UP is adorable but is Pixar so far they have a good run of good characters and relationships. Let’s hope Brave is not more spinster glorification that it seems to be in the trailers…so not impressed.

The sad part is that, these days, it better to err on the side of douchebag than nice guy, since the latter won’t even get on the train (I’m not an asshole, but I play one on tv)…

Sadly that sounds logical given the choices….*le sigh*

Because she’s a writer? And wants to experience things?

On writing Stephen King warns about trying to “experience” everything in order to write about it. He warns that you need your whole brain to create and drugs and alcohol can destroy it so stay away from them. I will say in specially sensitive types (like moi) feelings and destructive relationships should be on the same category of drugs and I had noticed that I can’t write when I’m not in my happy place, which is odd I heard most writers write better when they are depressed, I need to be content in order for my characters to talk to me, still counts for advice, YMMV.

Underdog

“One 24 yo woman shared a story with me today. For a month a guy has been trying to get together with her. His friends have talked to her about how much he likes her, and he has been demonstrating consistent interest. At least among his friends, he has a reputation for being a good guy and not P&Ding girls. Last weekend, he told her how much he likes her and they went out alone on Sunday. She wound up spending the night and they had sex. She told me that it was definitely pre-commitment, but that she felt she was making a good bet. She thought the sex was very good, and in the morning, things seemed fine. Not only did she not hear from him all week, but when she saw him out Saturday night, he avoided her. She asked him point blank what was up, and he said, “What’s up is that I want to party!” and walked away. He seemed to have morphed into an asshole! She is bewildered. Was she bad in bed? Why did he do a 180? If he didn’t want a relationship, then why did he act like he was pursuing something real for a month, rather than a casual hookup? He paved the way, then took another road. Like you, she understands that I’m saying “no sex before monogamy” but she says she feels sure that if she’d rebuffed him that night it would have been done, because they’d been hanging out for a month already. It was lose-lose from the start.”

Going to need a lot more info on this one. Knowing what they did for that entire month is crucial. Just hanging out in the same social circle is not enough. Sounds like he simply waited until he can hit and quit instead of actually bonding and putting forth any emotional investments.

Rum

Susan
That remark, “Be who you are” was perfect. Because he was committing to absolutely nothing of substance but still managed to pry open the inner doors of her emotions and imaginations because it sounded so comprehensively affirming.. Perfect. Notice how he neatly avoided the part about him remaining in this heart-warming picture long term.
You should start by asking guys about this sort of thing. They would tell you the truth and it would save time.

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Heh I just though of a crazy development for the series why if Hanna and Marnie try to swing and Hannah gets with Charlie and Adam with Marnie? Would that make the show even more miserable? They are aiming for that right?

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Anacaona

That wouldn’t work for one very simple reason. Marnie and Charlie are in the 8-10 range of looks. Hannah and Adam are in the 4-5 range.

GudEnuf

I’ve spent a half hour searching for a decent summery, but the internet is shitty here and most “summaries” aren’t really summaries they’re just reaction posts.

Did Hanna steal $100 bucks or something? Somebody said the $100 scene (whatever that was) was really empowering.

JP

“On writing Stephen King warns about trying to “experience” everything in order to write about it. He warns that you need your whole brain to create and drugs and alcohol can destroy it so stay away from them.”

Considering that he was high on coke for most of the 1980’s…

“Yet, as is revealed in a fascinating new biography, he spent most of the Eighties on an extended drug and alcohol binge which so fogged his mind that even today he cannot remember working on many of the books he wrote during that period.

“Heh I just though of a crazy development for the series why if Hanna and Marnie try to swing and Hannah gets with Charlie and Adam with Marnie? Would that make the show even more miserable? They are aiming for that right?”

If I had it my way, I’d have Charlie go through a transformational period where he learns game and swallows the red pill. Marnie thinks he’s ridiculous until she sees him hook up with girl after girls. The icing on the cake is when he fucks Jessa on her bed. Then Marnie decides to get even by hooking up with guy after guys but finds out it only makes her more miserable. Then she tries to get back with Charlie but he’s now too jaded to give a shit anymore. He seduces her. He seduces the fuck out of her. Then he pulls back right before sex and calls her a slut. Then a few months later, Marnie finds out Shoshana’s been secretly dating Charlie and that they’re engaged.

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Considering that he was high on coke for most of the 1980′s…
Yes he mentions that too. The advice was “voice of experience” sort of written.

Esquired

Re: Susan’s Story

Note to ladies: When friends of a guy tell you he’s great, ask yourself this question, are they my friends first. Guys don’t want to be called c*ck blockers and unless he feels he is more of a friend to you than the guy, he wont tell you the truth. Their words shouldn’t have any bearing on the decision you make.

Usually the longer you can wait the better for you.

First time commenting BTW.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Esquired

Sound advice, and welcome!

http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

Crapola. Posting from my phone between calls and I screwed up. Lot of good car wrecks this evening.

What I’ve said here on HUS before:

A genuinely good guy who’s attractive can write his own ticket these days. He’s going to be the King of Social Circle Game. A girl who wants to land a dude like this had better be fucking awesome, or she’ll get passed over.

The girl who thinks she can secure commitment to a guy like this simply by banging him is delusional. If a guy is picky (and can afford to be) that will just magnify your faults.

Granted – an attractive, relationship oriented man is in a smaller pond, but relatively he’s a much bigger fish.

One other thing women don’t seem to grok in fullness about guys like this:

The game is played out over a much longer time-frame than a hookup or short fling. You’re being evaluated for commitment over weeks or months, not hours or days. There are less BS tricks you can pull over this extended period.

If a guy wants an in-shape, feminine woman who likes to cook – well, anybody can pull that off for a week or two. Sooner or later, though, he’ll notice that you’re never at the gym and you only own one pan.

Sometimes, guys like this rule women out for a bunch of little things, not one or two glaring “faults”. Maybe she’s got a little too much debt, and she’s a bigtime slob/neat freak. Throw some boring conversation in there, and sub-average sexual compatibility, and the whole picture doesn’t look so good anymore. Why would the guy settle if he doesn’t have to? He was asked twice this week if he’s single by friends of friends that know “a girl that’s just perfect for you!”

This guy’s not a cad, by the way. He’s just discriminating in his tastes.

I might be in opposition to many here, but I like how things are in the SMP/MMP today. I know a little about women, I have a few things going for myself, and I’m not ugly – and I date extremely attractive, very squared away girls. I honestly did not settle a bit with my current SO. There’s no way I’d do so well 30 or 40 years ago.

http://eradica.wordpress.com Firepower

Sorry. I can actually feel this convo
lowering my sperm count
It’s like Krazy Girl Kryptonite for the balls…

Passer_By

@susan

Well, technically, you were “had by a female writer” since he does whatever Dunham decides he will do, but I guess it’s more fun to discuss it as you did.

@dogsquat
“and was rocking a smelly dingleberry”

Boy, I really didn’t expect to read those words when I opened this comment thread.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Passer By

Well, technically, you were “had by a female writer” since he does whatever Dunham decides he will do, but I guess it’s more fun to discuss it as you did.

True enough. It’s why I love the writing so much. Dunham is 26 and she’s got great insight to human nature, especially under the conditions of the current SMP.

Even though Adam’s just a character, I feel all sorts of emotions about him. Another sign of great writing.

A Definite Beta Guy

DS,

“I might be in opposition to many here, but I like how things are in the SMP/MMP today.”

I don’t disagree you with that good guys can basically write their own ticket. Hell, even I can get some pretty nice girls looking my way and talking to me these days.

That’s only because all of my guy friends suck with women, though. And they suffer a lot because of it, so I can’t see this SMP working well at all.

Plus I like my women chaste.

A.

“Perhaps a man doesn’t desire a woman who stands up for herself, but surely he can respect it?”

It sounds like she tried closing the barn door after the horse had bolted.

Cooper

“Hannah: Yeah, but then you kissed me.
Adam: You looked sad.
Hannah: Then we had sex.
Adam: Because we were kissing
This is the part where women start screaming, “Dick! Douche! Asshole!””

I thought the episode was really good. Charlie was stupid again, but I have no pitty for his kind of stupidity. Although I liked him in the first scene, LOL when he called both Hannah and Marnie dicks.
I thought it was interesting how empowered they made Jessa seem after having sex infront of Shoshanna.

Hannah being completely useless at sexual-harrassment, sueing, and blackmail was hilarious. The Boss was strangely wise in his observations.

I also thought how they showed Marnie and Charlie meeting, and that they made it seem as though he was exactly same back then.

That’s all I can think of right now. Oh, and,
Adam’s a cad, (lol @ calling Hannah ‘kid’)
and Charlie should have broke up with Marnie first – he’s still being stupid, so no emphathy.

http://shanewegner.bandcamp.com Shane Wegner

Susan sez:
“Yes, we can say “Stop hooking up!”
“Until he calls you his girlfriend, no sex.”

I’m being a little bit tongue in cheek here: is hookingupsmart.com basically now stophookingup.com? CommitedRelationshipsOnly.com

If I’m hearing right, it feels like the thesis of HUS is that 100% of women want relationships, and 0% want just hookups for fun or whatever. So given that, it seems the HUS name implies the only “smart” way to hookup is to never hookup all. If so, wouldn’t NeverHookUp.com be more literally accurate as the advice of the site? (If a bit more bitter.)

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Shane Wegner

Hooking up does not necessarily imply intercourse. It can mean one kiss in the back seat of a cab. The key feature of hooking up is the lack of any expectation whatsoever that there will be further contact.

If a woman wants casual sex, and she hooks up with some random to get it, she’s “smart” in the sense that she has successfully implemented a strategy to meet her objective. In that case, hooking up dumb might be having sex with an ex, for example.

I don’t think 100% of women want relationships, but I do think that a strong majority – maybe 80-90%? – do prefer sex in relationships to casual sex. In any case, only about 10% of college women have more than 5 sexual partners during their whole four years.

Squishy? That guy is in very good shape. You got abs and triceps like that?

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@OTC

Squishy? That guy is in very good shape. You got abs and triceps like that?

There’s something weird about his body. Maybe other women don’t agree. It looks muscular under a squishy layer. It’s also just so odd (and funny) that in five episodes he has never worn anything but the same jeans with the button undone. It’s obviously not summer – the other characters are wearing coats and sweaters – but he’s always half naked.

asdf

How can you complain about “combat dating” when HUS is basically about strategy and tactics for the purpose of attaining a personal goal (make guy do whatever it is you want). That’s not a relationship in the “healthy” sense of the word.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@asdf

How can you complain about “combat dating” when HUS is basically about strategy and tactics for the purpose of attaining a personal goal (make guy do whatever it is you want).

Huh? Making a guy do whatever you want = ladyboner killer. The relationship can’t work unless it works for both people – why even bother with one that isn’t healthy?

Cooper

@Undergod #80
Wow! Interesting prediction.

j

Susan, this is a total digression, but did you see this article in today’s NY Times? Interested to hear your (and everyone else’s) thoughts on it:

Re the NYXs article. I found it kind of creepy and sad. One woman is described as having broken up with another in a string of bad boyfriends. I suppose freezing one’s eggs is an understandable strategy, but it doesn’t address what these women are doing wrong in the first place. What are their criteria for dating? How have they changed since these women were in their early 20s?

Also, having a child much past one’s early 40s must be very, very difficult. I was exhausted having mine at 30 and 32. Not to mention the fact that you’re then the oldest mom in every group – I can recall certain moms who seemed more like grandmas when my kids were in elementary school.

More incentives for women to not get serious about finding a real prospect for a life partner. Now they will think they can settled down at 50 or wait to retire to start a family to have the best of both worlds a lucrative career with tons of money and then stay at home and raise the kids. More smoke and mirrors, IMO.

Mireille

I still haven’t seen the show but reading from the previous post that Adam sounded like nothing a healthy woman would want.
How could you tell he wasn’t going to do anything? He made no promises or pledges. Zero. What is most telling is that while she spoke her mind, expressing vocally what she felt, he didn’t choose to do something JUST FOR HER, to reassure her, he picked a self serving thing again, SEX.

Also, I agree women have to let go of that “savior syndrome”; I have seen so many of my college friend settle for “menchild”, to tell you the truth, I had no respect/interest in men in general until well beyond 25yo when I met some pretty good dudes. Just had to wait for them to mature.
That shows one thing in this SMP/MMP, you know a guy doesn’t care when he’s not fighting for you or even fighting WITH you; he just doesn’t have the time for this because he is not emotionally invested. It is wise for women to recognize it and move on without drama. Sad but true, no need to try and break the guy, guilt him or whatever. One thing I would say is that I have noticed that American men are adverse to “drama” as in couple discussion, friction while the few guys I dated in Europe welcomed discussion, even heated just because issues had to be solved and confrontation was productive. I noticed that here people run away from it.
I guess it all comes down to recognizing good drama from bad one, the type that makes your relationship toward an necessary end or to the next step.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Mireille

you know a guy doesn’t care when he’s not fighting for you or even fighting WITH you; he just doesn’t have the time for this because he is not emotionally invested. It is wise for women to recognize it and move on without drama. Sad but true, no need to try and break the guy, guilt him or whatever.

Welcome to HUS, and thanks for commenting! I think that’s the hardest thing for women – just moving on, letting go of the hurt feelings, revenge fantasies, etc. Especially if the woman feels that she’s been duped in some way, it’s very difficult to just let go and not analyze it to death with one’s girlfriends. But obviously more productive.

That’s an interesting thing about Girls – they’re very neurotic, but not in the sense that they beat all their issues to death in committee the way the characters did in Sex and the City.

One thing I would say is that I have noticed that American men are adverse to “drama” as in couple discussion, friction while the few guys I dated in Europe welcomed discussion, even heated just because issues had to be solved and confrontation was productive. I noticed that here people run away from it.
I guess it all comes down to recognizing good drama from bad one, the type that makes your relationship toward an necessary end or to the next step.

That’s really interesting. I wonder if American women are more likely to act crazy, so guys are more wary. Based on the European films I see, I doubt it

Emily

>> “Then a few months later, Marnie finds out Shoshana’s been secretly dating Charlie and that they’re engaged.”

Haha I’m glad that I’m not the only person who secretly ships Charlie and Shoshanna. I think she would appreciate “his kind of smothering love”! 😉

They haven’t really developed Shoshanna’s character all that much, but she’s a perfect example of the type of person I’m referring to when I mention “beta females”.

fate

This is a great series that speaks a lot of truth, and leaves the audience to draw their own conclusions. I’m impressed by how the characters have enough complexity to trick (parts of ) the audience in exactly the way it’s meant to.

In most of the roles I’ve seen Dunham play (which she writes for herself), she’s very deliberately the least physically attractive character, hitting on guys out of her league, and usually ending up sexually humiliated. In one interview I watched, she spoke about wanting to portray the experiences of the less attractive.

Herb

I just watched the linked recap and based on it and the stills I have one question: who dresses these girls? Clinton and Stacey would have a field day with them and not a very nice one. If Trinny and Susannah got a hold of them it would just be plain ugly.

OGRE

I’ve been watching this show primarily because I always watch HBO on sunday nights, especially with Game of Thrones on now. But it has grown on me for some reason.

Re Adam/Hannah:

Susan was surprised by Adam’s believing they had split up. I was completely surprised that Hannah thought “we’re basically together now.” I assumed she knew that the last time they did it she had got sucked in again and couldn’t help herself! I was blown away that she thought they were bf/gf now. And now I’m really amazed that two people can watch the same thing happen and have completely different and opposite reactions to it.

Re Adam as player

I don’t see Adam as a player, or as an Alpha male as the terminology is used. He strikes me as someone completely oblivious to the societal rules of relating to other people. I’d liken him to what Vox would call a Sigma, in that Adam simply isn’t playing any games at all here, he’s ‘being who he is,’ and is totally unaware that there is even a game being played. Consider the previous episode when Hannah gives her the speech…Adam says “What are you asking me?” when she clearly was not asking him anything. He can’t remember things he said to her only moments before, hes far more interested in shirtless bicycle maintenance than anything Hannah has to say unless its related to him nutting one off, and in fact considers her quite a distraction to his daily life (unless hes nutting one off). You can almost see it on his face as hes thinking “Who is this girl and why is she here?” when Hannah stops by his place.

I see neither dominant traits or player traits from Adam. There is no seduction, no push/pull, no teasing. He completely ignores her in every way, doesn’t respond to any calls or texts, not even a nudie text, unless shes right in front of him in his apartment wanting to have sex. His sexual fantasies are very submissive. While we haven’t seen him interact with anyone but Hannah in his apartment, I can’t picture him being dominant in social settings with other people. I actually see him being either ignored or mocked by other men, and he would probably be oblivious to that as well. (Although given the other men this show has portrayed, we have yet to see a socially dominant male from LD’s perspective…Ray being the closest thing.) The guy gets money to live on from his grandmother for crying out loud! This is not an Alpha male by any means….this is a socially dysfunctional man-child. And no player would let the girl walk out with a $100…

Re Charlie/Marnie

And here with Charlie we have the typical beta-dupe. Their relationship basically writes itself and is completely predictable. Its amazing that they lasted this long. Want to know how to turn a girl off….do what Charlie does. Everything he does, exactly the way he does it. I’m no fan of Marnie’s, but I can’t blame her one bit for how she feels about Charlie. Although begging him not to dump her and then turning around and immediately dumping him, presumably while hes inside of her, is off-putting to say the least…

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@OGRE

Epic comment! Thanks for leaving it. I think your analysis of Adam is right on. He does seem profoundly antisocial, and clueless in all the ways you mentioned.

I have such a soft spot for Charlie – as a mom of a certain age I see his wonderful qualities and his enormous capacity for love. I really did love his “I decided on you” speech. He’s incredibly loyal. On the other hand, OMG during sex in that funny loft bed, I had my hands over my eyes and was peeking. His need was so overwhelming he sucked every molecule of oxygen out of the air. And then when Marnie bumps her head, he starts saying, “It’s OK, I’m here, I’m here” as if she were a child having a nightmare.

I have to say I’m extremely impressed with how precisely Dunham has nailed these SMP dynamics. It’s quite extraordinary.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

Was anyone else on Team Jessa in this episode? I loved it that she got her ex to cheat, as his motives were clearly questionable from the start. He had no business looking her up after dumping her, he knew he was playing with fire. Then when she guilts him afterwards by not allowing a kiss? I loved that. He was a douche with his goofy porkpie hat. Ha, karma’s a bitch.

I also think that Jessa is sooooo sexy – much, much hotter than Marnie. I have a girl crush on Jessa. If I were a guy she could make me kind of crazy.

fate

Agreed with OGRE – Adam isn’t a player, though in game parlance he would be “unreactive” and “living in his own reality” (when he’s not acting out submissive fantasies).

Despite his apparently troll-like appearance, Booth Jonathan (the trendy, sardonic artist in episode 3) was Dunham’s alpha, eliciting an unprovoked “I’m not going to kiss you” from Marnie when she felt that she wanted to kiss him.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@fate

I’m really hoping Booth Jonathan makes another appearance. Now that Marnie is single, it would be brilliant to have her go straight from Charlie to Booth.

I think he is Dunham’s faux alpha. I’d bet on Ray as Dunham’s real alpha. His takedown of Marnie in the cafe is hilarious. “I get you, I know what you’re about, and I don’t like it.”

pvw

J:

Susan, this is a total digression, but did you see this article in today’s NY Times? Interested to hear your (and everyone else’s) thoughts on it:

My reply:

Perhaps to give hope to women who began looking for husbands when they were younger but were not able to find one and wanted some sort of hope as they got older. That is the sense I got from the interviews with the women and their parents.

pvw

…in other words, I don’t believe all women with successful careers are “evil feminist career (w)itches and carousel riders” who couldn’t be bothered with marrying and settling down when they were younger women.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@pvw

…in other words, I don’t believe all women with successful careers are “evil feminist career (w)itches and carousel riders” who couldn’t be bothered with marrying and settling down when they were younger women

I agree with this, and I think it can be very, very challenging for high achieving women. One of my best friends from b-school was the first female Managing Director at Merrill Lynch. She was in charge of Trading, and she’d achieved that by her mid-30s. Her love life literally died overnight. Suddenly she was in charge of nearly all the men in her work circle.

Another woman is the daughter of a good friend. She went to Berkeley, then Harvard Law School, and became a successful constitutional lawyer – she has argued in front of the Supreme Court several times. She despaired of ever finding a mate. Ultimately, she fell in love with an associate who worked for her – he left the firm because she was a partner. He is younger than she is. She’s now in her early 40s – they have two daughters, ages 1 and 4. She brings home (a lot of) bacon, and he works in a much lower paying job.

Neither of these women ever “rode the carousel.” Neither was promiscuous or hung up on dominant men. Both are physically attractive. One got married and had children, the other never did.

“I once knew two sisters, both smart and cute. One was a prolific slut, the other, at 30, a virgin. (The slut sister informed me about the condition of the other.) The virgin was a successful attorney and very religious. Apparently she just couldn’t meet the “right guy”.

Granted, this is one data point, but it got me thinking that there is a rare type of woman out there: SWPL but with traditional values and high impulse control who can’t navigate the contemporary urban fuck and suck scene. They want to save themselves for marriage but no high-status male (she roams in the world of high-status males) will put up with her for long if she doesn’t put out.

Nor, however, will she settle for a beta for marriage. She doesn’t miss sex because she’s never had it and is terrified of it. So she exists independently, disappearing from normal social life behind enormous work hours, all her “friends” mere colleagues and clients, who never get to know her very well. Occasionally this creature relaxes on her expensive sofa to watch Mad Men (she is SWPL, after all), dreaming of an earlier era when just such a prude as herself would still be a catch. She isn’t a cat lady; she is a worker lady.

She is secretly in love with one of the top, married partners in the firm and won’t put out for anyone else. Alas, her secret love is too high status for her; he can get younger, hotter, tighter mistresses who also pose less exposure risk in the workplace or the marriage than this one would.”

http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

@Mireille

That shows one thing in this SMP/MMP, you know a guy doesn’t care when he’s not fighting for you or even fighting WITH you; he just doesn’t have the time for this because he is not emotionally invested.

I see that Susan highlighted the same sentence I did.

It’s too early in the morning for this, but of all the things I’ve read in HUS, this has made me most angry. Not at you, Mireille, but at this adversarial-relationship idea. Some guy has to either fight *for* you or *with* you? Unless you’re practicing some form of martial arts I’m not familiar with, I can’t imagine a worse situation.

If that’s the way you see it, then the problem isn’t that “he just doesn’t have the time for this because he is not emotionally invested.” The problem is that the drama you bring isn’t worth the investment in you. True for anybody.

It’s time to take inventory and ask “What am I bringing to the table?”

pvw

Susan:
I think it can be very, very challenging for high achieving women. One of my best friends from b-school was the first female Managing Director at Merrill Lynch. She was in charge of Trading, and she’d achieved that by her mid-30s. Her love life literally died overnight. Suddenly she was in charge of nearly all the men in her work circle.

Another woman is the daughter of a good friend. She went to Berkeley, then Harvard Law School, and became a successful constitutional lawyer – she has argued in front of the Supreme Court several times. She despaired of ever finding a mate. Ultimately, she fell in love with an associate who worked for her – he left the firm because she was a partner. He is younger than she is. She’s now in her early 40s – they have two daughters, ages 1 and 4. She brings home (a lot of) bacon, and he works in a much lower paying job.

Neither of these women ever “rode the carousel.” Neither was promiscuous or hung up on dominant men. Both are physically attractive. One got married and had children, the other never did.

“I once knew two sisters, both smart and cute. One was a prolific slut, the other, at 30, a virgin. (The slut sister informed me about the condition of the other.) The virgin was a successful attorney and very religious. Apparently she just couldn’t meet the “right guy”.

Granted, this is one data point, but it got me thinking that there is a rare type of woman out there: SWPL but with traditional values and high impulse control who can’t navigate the contemporary urban fuck and suck scene. They want to save themselves for marriage but no high-status male (she roams in the world of high-status males) will put up with her for long if she doesn’t put out.

Nor, however, will she settle for a beta for marriage.

My reply:

Look at the two extremes of what you’re describing: virgin and whore; it is as though for those two women from the same family there no middle ground.

The ideal which has been discussed and supported here is to navigate the market as a marriage-minded woman with a low number.

What you are imagining does not include SWPL women only; it includes subgroups of women of color as well, for example–I know plenty of them!

But glancing at both of your comments, the ideal way for women in this category is to marry a beta…A high achieving beta who wouldn’t mind having a more successful wife. But it has to be carefully negotiated; this appears to be on the rise–more men are married to women who earn more. More of them are “stay at home dads.”

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@pvw

But glancing at both of your comments, the ideal way for women in this category is to marry a beta…A high achieving beta who wouldn’t mind having a more successful wife. But it has to be carefully negotiated; this appears to be on the rise–more men are married to women who earn more. More of them are “stay at home dads.”

I agree – that’s what the lawyer did. Her husband is a lawyer too, but doesn’t have the crazy workload she does, because he works for a corporation. One thing that’s been really hard for her is that she would actually like to take more time to spend with her children, or even work part-time. It’s just not feasible. I mean, it could be, if she were to end her high profile career and take a lower paying job. I think she feels trapped as the primary breadwinner, financing private school in DC, and all those kinds of trappings. I know a close friend of hers is also very high powered in DC, and the husband is a professor. He too does more of the childcare and domestic stuff.

This is a new frontier. It will be interesting to see how people navigate it.

.this is Jen

Dang, I thought we were all going to be telling our own “had by a cad” stories. I had my comment all composed…..LOL

Mireille

@Joe,

It has nothing to do with what a woman brings to the table; we see all the time women and men walking away from a partner with all the good stuff, just because they’re not ready/too selfish/too clueless to hold on to it.
What I’m talking about here is the fact we have to be able to recognize those signs and move on, not get bogged down by it.
From what I have seen, I’m not a crazy person, I’m so low key I get along with pretty much everyone. I observe people a lot and have great intuition, so I can smell when someone thinks talking about ANY issues equals drama and live in an escapist reality. When things don’t go their way or you try to define the relationship, they bolt. They don’t want/know how to engage beyond a certain level.
Also, when I hear about “bringing stuff to the table”, I always ask ” which table? Casual or LTR?” Just like for jobs, if you try and apply to CS with a LTR background, you’ll be bored and frustrated very soon; otoh, if you’re bringing CS experience to someone looking for a LTR, you’ll get dismissed as well because clearly underqualified. So yeah, I think people need to drop that idea that any man will settle with a woman if she brings “whatever” to the table; most people are not that rational.

chris

Jordan B. Peterson is a tenured research and clinical PhD psychologist who currently teaches at the University of Toronto.

Hopefully this is the beginning of academics speaking out against the ills of gender feminism.

Escoffier

There are two variables though. First the woman has to find a man who does not mind being married to a woman higher on the status ladder than he is (a minority of men), then she herself has to be a woman who does not mind being married to a man lower on the status ladder than she is (a minority of women). Draw the ven diagram and the overlap is quite, quite small. This is not a practical solution for most people.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Escoffier

You’re exactly right about that Venn diagram. That’s why the woman became permanently single the day she got Managing Director. She was suddenly outearning nearly all of the Masters of the Universe in her firm.

Zach

@Susan

Interesting about your girl crush on Jessa. Most guys I know who watch the show think Marnie is way hotter. Jessa doesn’t really have a traditionally pretty face per se. Also, almost all of us want to throw up a little in our mouths when she opens hers. Coming from a school/background that values hard work, success and focus, she personifies flighty, “artsy”, hipster Bklyn girls. None of us can stand them, much less respect them. She comes off as outrageously pretentious. I think one thing that’s been glossed over in this show is that they all went to Oberlin, which is infamous as the most outrageously liberal, experimental, hipster-y college. While I don’t buy the criticism of this show as “unrepresentative”, as it represents very accurately a certain slice of the population and their lives, it is certainly the most “English-major” slice of that population. At least among my friends, most girls (and it’s almost exclusively girls who are like this) we know who are doing unpaid internships/living off parents while chasing acting, writing, or whatever are sneered at and disrespected as Peter Pans who can’t grow up and need to get a job.

I know that will spark the great “extended adolescence” commentary about men of the same ilk, but at least in my experience hard partying, drinking, drug use and caddishness are not at all mutually exclusive with hard work and success in a career.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Zach

I agree with you re Jessa and the Oberlin vibe in general. Dunham went to Oberlin, and a friend of my daughter’s was there with her. He says the representation is absolutely perfect. He loves the show.

Marnie is beautiful, but I’m surprised to hear that guys think she’s hot. She seems sort of asexual to me, and it sure doesn’t sound like Charlie was getting much. Jessa obviously loves sex and seems like a wildcat in bed, though I certainly understand how guys might balk at dating her.

Cooper

I agree with OGRE too. Adam isn’t really a Alpha-Player by any means. He has literally done NOTHING to persuade Hannah to keep coming around. In fact, he seems fairly shocked and startled when she does. (it seems accustomed for him to comment on her drop-ins being unexpected)

Re: “Squishy”
Yeah, I don’t know what your rock-hardness your imagining when you think of a guy with abs, or who is “ripped.” Adams’ pretty fit, albeit his body is a little strange looking. Most guys in good-shape are going feel squishy no matter how hard-rock their chest may look. (unless they’ve cut (as in lost their extra water weight) or are flexing intensely)

I’m cheering for Shoshanna and Charlie!! I’d almost put money on that – it
seems like a perfect combo and a plausible plot.

Escoffier

I really had a thing for pretentious English majors in my single days, I suppose you could even call them hipsters avant la lettre. However, I was wise enough not to marry one.

Jonny

“I think she feels trapped as the primary breadwinner, financing private school in DC, and all those kinds of trappings.”

Women sure know how to nag themselves and fill themselves with guilt. They ought to own their decisions.

The Lotus Eater

I normally wouldn’t watch a show like this dismissing it has fluff and porn but you all have me watching it. Charlie’s “I decided on you” was a red flag for me. I spent 2 years of my life with a guy who told me much the same thing. He could never pin point why he loved me, he just “did”. That always bothered me. Later he told the woman who would eventually become his wife that he never really loved me, then went on to detail all the reasons he loved her. They are still together.

The show is set in my beloved hometown Manhattan so that’s another plus. Anyone from Manhattan knows “Lotus Eaters” my favorite eatery. Lotuses are yummy!

Escoffier

Actually, don’t they all live in Brooklyn?

Ramble

I don’t know why everyone bashes LD’s looks.

I was the guy that started that, and I certainly did not mean to bash her. It was more a lead up to a question, as in “All of the pictures posted here are pretty bad, does she really look that bad?”

Apparently, they are attempting to make her look frumpy on the show.

Ramble

BTW, does the show ever explain how these just-out-of-college kids afford to live in Brooklyn Heights?

For those that are not familiar, BH is the most expensive area in the Outer Boroughs.

The Lotus Eater

Chris, the problem with that video is that Jordan Petersen is assuming, based on what I don’t know, that when Kate Bolick said “something is missing” she meant a “testosterone charged world wrecker”. I don’t know any woman that dumps a man because he’s not a TCWW. What happens is that the couple just grows apart or discovers they were not as compatible as they thought they were in beginning. The assumption that every couple that breaks up is the result of the wanting a TCWW instead of other factors is one a common misconception by men like this one.

http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

Susan, sorry I didn’t make it through all the comments before commenting, so this might have already been covered, but . . .

This is (for women) the Dark Side of the Hamster.

When the Hamster is telling you why leaving your only-OK beta dude for an Alpha, then it is (more or less) working in your best interest, or at least improving your position. Indeed, having a powerful Hamster can lead a woman to fame and fortune (and their attendant dark sides).

But the Hamster isn’t always running in the right direction for you. In this case, Hannah desperately wanted an emotional connection and a validation of her personhood and her femininity. When Adam made one, she immediately leaped on it and her Hamster tore it to shreds: “He made an emotional connection — therefore he understands all the stuff that I meant, as well as some of the stuff I actually said — he so gets me!” when Adam was basically saying: “Yes, I give you permission to be yourself, and that means dumping me, and this sudden and unexpected demonstration of your power is alluring and attractive. Emotionally significant break-up sex is therefore in order.”

Hannah’s Hamster didn’t slow down long enough to fact-check the important issues. It did correctly surmise that the sex meant something emotional and profound, but it completely skipped by the whole “wait, what if he doesn’t mean what I think he means?” in an effort to enjoy the emotional rush of the moment. Hannah “followed her Heart (Hamster)” instead of listening for two seconds because she didn’t want to break the pure, magical, emotional and sexual moment. And she didn’t follow up appropriately.

It’s not so much that Adam was a Cad – I can’t give him that much credit. Opportunistic, yes — but I don’t think it’s fair to see his seduction as a coldhearted play for nookie as much as marking an important milestone (ending) of a relationship. And in the end, even if she was fooled, the experience Hannah had of emotional fulfillment within the moment was real, even if it was based upon false data. What the clever girl needs to realize is that she’s seeking the experience, not the dude — but her Hamster is blaming the dude for the experience, not holding her accountable for it.

Not realizing that your Hamster is driving isn’t stupid — it’s naive. It’s something every woman learns, if she’s wise, and something every woman needs to be reminded of every now and again. You all so desperately want to follow your hearts and have them lead you to fulfillment and emotional bliss, without realizing that you are the one’s steering the ship. Once Hannah takes responsibility for her emotional ambitions and her own feelings, both romantic and erotic, she’s doomed to one clumsy, half-stumbling relationship after another. Women who know their own Hamster won’t even see the guys who are mistakes-in-waiting, the way that a chess master just doesn’t see a poor move on the board. And if they can manage to not let their own desperation get the better of them, they might just luck into a guy with some real potential — and have the wisdom to recognize it.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Ian

That was a great comment on the hamster.

Women who know their own Hamster won’t even see the guys who are mistakes-in-waiting, the way that a chess master just doesn’t see a poor move on the board. And if they can manage to not let their own desperation get the better of them, they might just luck into a guy with some real potential — and have the wisdom to recognize it.

I think I did get lucky – my husband stood out from all other guys and I worked hard to make that happen (and work). But as I said in the post, I’m still not immune to hamsterwheeling, projecting my own fantasy of nurturing a damaged boy and turning him around. This is a powerful female instinct. I think the best we can do is recognize it when it happens, and perform an internal reality check.

Ramble

One of my best friends from b-school was the first female Managing Director at Merrill Lynch.
…
Another woman is the daughter of a good friend. She went to Berkeley, then Harvard Law School, and became a successful constitutional lawyer – she has argued in front of the Supreme Court several times.

Your friends and my friends are very, very different.

Susan, every time you mention some friend, they are in charge of surgery at Harvard Med, or whatever.

You have done very well for yourself. Good for you.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Ramble

Susan, every time you mention some friend, they are in charge of surgery at Harvard Med, or whatever.

You have done very well for yourself. Good for you.

Well, I live in Harvard’s backyard. My kids went to school with the kids of those professors, and I’m less than a mile from the medical area, which boasts some of the best hospitals in the world. Boston is a very vibrant city, and can be very, very intimidating.

Compared to a lot of my neighbors and friends, I’m a real slacker.

Escoffier

Ramble, I get the feeling that simply by not putting them in west villiage townhose, the writers feel they have made a major concession to reality. It’s flaw in every such show, hip young people living places they can’t possibly afford.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

Ramble, I get the feeling that simply by not putting them in west villiage townhose, the writers feel they have made a major concession to reality. It’s flaw in every such show, hip young people living places they can’t possibly afford.

They’re not in Brooklyn Heights. Hannah mentioned in her job interview that she lives in Greenpoint. Adam must as well. I think she also referred to Park Slope as way too upscale for her. And it’s clear that Charlie’s apartment is waaayyy off the beaten track, requiring a bus to get to a train.

I think the apartments look fairly realistic. Adam’s especially is a dump.

Ramble

Neither of these women ever “rode the carousel.” Neither was promiscuous or hung up on dominant men. Both are physically attractive. One got married and had children, the other never did.

I think this is a fairly typical story for very high achieving women.

And kind of depressing, no?

Ramble

I have to say I’m extremely impressed with how precisely Dunham has nailed these SMP dynamics. It’s quite extraordinary.

It’s also unsurprising that she was not a STEM major.

I think it would have been pretty difficult to spend that much time talking to girlfriends about their relationships and thinking about men as much as she did and still have time for studying Applied Mathematics.

Zach

@Ian

I like the concept of the “rationalization hamster”, but I did crack up quite a bit at the capitalization of the Hamster and the way you wrote about it as a living, breathing animal. The picture I’m getting is of a little guinea pig living in a girl’s head, sniffing at and investigating each new guy.

Fred Flange

Someone asked about the Hannah character’s bizarre behavior at work: this is clearly a character trait of someone who cannot stay put in any one job, or even sabotages themselves because they like being in a constant crisis state (it’s exciting!). Note how she killed her dream job offer in episode 2 with a really stupid offensive joke. I know several people who fit this mode – they are always trying to “find themselves” and be “relevant” in what they do. It’s also good for the show: the Hannah character can bounce from job to job, setting up a new comic situation each time.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Fred Flange

I think you’re right – there’s great comic potential in Hannah’s cluelessness. That joke about date rape cracked me up in Episode 2, and how the interviewer said that kind of talk is not “office OK.”

She’s a bit like a female George Constanza.

Herb

@Zach

I know that will spark the great “extended adolescence” commentary about men of the same ilk, but at least in my experience hard partying, drinking, drug use and caddishness are not at all mutually exclusive with hard work and success in a career.

In some careers they seem to be required. Certainly, when I was in the service I was in the bottom quarter if not bottom ten percent in terms of hard partying, drinking, and casual sex (drug use, of course, was verboten) and I was still probably above average on the first two for men in their twenties at the time.

And we’re talking about guys who play with nuclear reactors. In fact, I think being in submarines and nuclear power is one reason we did. Same with air crews. The very nature of the career lead to high amounts of blowing off steam.

Alias

The other day while surfing channels I caught about 3 mins. of this show and just couldn’t bare to watch any longer. (not that I watch a lot of TV anyway)

Susan:
“when a man stares into our eyes, cups our face in his hands, and says something that sounds profound.”
——
Someone does this to me and I’m automatically thinking “OK, what do you want from me?”
unless I know the person very well and he/she has proven to have good character based on their cumulative prior actions.
======================

Susan:
“Hannah is speaking her mind! .. telling Adam what she wants .. how she feels … how much she cares about him … hurt by his indifference. She’s starting to cry. ”
—–
So! A jerk wouldn’t care if this was his own mother.
=========================

Susan:
“she’s stood up for herself”
——–
no, no, NO! THAT was NOT standing up for herself.
Standing up for herself would be to never EVER see him again!
Better = to have never gotten together with him in the 1st place.
She didn’t stand up for herself at all, she actually exposed her vulnerability further.
=========================

Susan:
“And there really aren’t that many sociopaths around, right? Except on blogs?”
——
OK, I’ll play along- there aren’t any sociopaths and no world hunger, no sickness, no wars, no death, and no reality TV…..
============================

Susan:
“It used to be that actions speak louder than words, but all bets are off.”
———
Actions are still louder than words.
One tiny act doesn’t negate ALL of a person’s previous a-hole behavior, in fact, it should raise suspicion- it should make you question their motive.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Alias

I can’t disagree with a single thing you said. Very reasonable, all of it. I’m alarmed at my own ability to rationalize this.

http://triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

I’d heard of but never seen this show, so I checked it out: pretty good actually, well-written, funny. Absolutely NO attractive or appealing characters, though, male or female, except for perhaps Jessa, who is physically very attractive, though terrible relationship material. But the other girls all represent everything guys will run away from. Don’t try this at home. The boys are all terrible too though, so I guess at least it’s kind of equal.

The Adam character was, obviously, not going to change. I wouldn’t classify him as a player tho, he’s just taking what he can get. Which in this case is Hannah, who is better than nothing, I suppose, if she only didn’t talk so much.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Byron

Which in this case is Hannah, who is better than nothing, I suppose, if she only didn’t talk so much.

Haha, hence Adam’s suggestion that they play the “quiet game” during sex.

Herb

@Herb 150

I think women who, in the age of feminism, who demanded to be in these careers that have that high stress and then are mad men don’t want women like them have missed a huge point (and this fits the “I’m a challenging woman” types too)

When you have a high stress job like that the last thing you want from your lover is more of the same. Sure, you blow off steam with your buddies from the job because they get it. I don’t care if my lover gets it. I want her to be an escape from that. I think this is what a lot of men are talking about when they say they want feminine women.

pvw

Escoffier May 15, 2012 at 10:47 am

There are two variables though. First the woman has to find a man who does not mind being married to a woman higher on the status ladder than he is (a minority of men), then she herself has to be a woman who does not mind being married to a man lower on the status ladder than she is (a minority of women). Draw the ven diagram and the overlap is quite, quite small. This is not a practical solution for most people.

My reply:

But for those few people who are managing to do it, it seems numbers of them are doing well. Susan, I know a few women who are in this grouping as well. And it is only possible when the spouses are dedicated to a greater goal, ie., their marriage and long term happiness, but without being overly concerned about society’s dictates or perhaps other people’s opinions as well?….They each have to believe that the other is truly admirable with qualities they find important for the long term, ie., his cool beta qualities as a dad; her feminine (loving and devoted mama bear) competence as a provider mom.

Marie

@ ADBG:
You guys are so negative!
I don’t mean gray area as in “he’s sending mixed signals”. I mean as in he seems to be relationship-minded and a bit infatuated but doesn’t live where I live.

Ramble

Jordan B. Peterson is a tenured research and clinical PhD psychologist who currently teaches at the University of Toronto.

Hopefully this is the beginning of academics speaking out against the ills of gender feminism.

Chris, unfortunately he has a somewhat high-pitched, tinny voice, but that video is very good.

He gives a very good explanation as to why otherwise masculine, intelligent boys are not available to girls. They were smart enough to learn the lessons that their PC overlords taught them. The natural sociopaths, on the other hand, they didn’t give a fuck.

Alias

> Demands must be backed up with actions or else they’re just hot air.
_____
Susan:
“At least among his friends, he has a reputation for being a good guy and not P&Ding girls. Last weekend, he told her how much he likes her”
——-
> What loyalty would a person’s friends have to you? You need to vet them too.

Take what people say explicitly with a grain of salt (especially when it requires you to take action) and put much much more weight to what they say implicitly.

Susan:
“One 24 yo woman shared a story with me today. For a month a guy has been trying to get together with her. His friends have talked to her about how much he likes her, and he has been demonstrating consistent interest. ”
——–
Demonstrating interest is nothing.
As others have already stated, when in doubt- err on the side of caution.
I feel bad for people who invest before commitment and end up disappointed.

Cooper

You know I’d really like to hear a rational explanation of why women would have these “hamsters.” When does it serve a purpose – when does it create a favorable outcome?

Is seems women prefer following their hamster, and seek guys that they can change. Why is this?

Does the idea of reforming a cad make him a more satisfying reward?
I’ve heard the complaint of betas being “no challenge” over and over. It makes me think that women value a unwilling man the most, as he is the biggest challenge, and thus the most rewarding catch.

If women looked for LTR-material rather than a “reward” I don’t think the hamster would serve any purpose. The concept of wanting to beleive a person can change for the good isn’t really exclusive to women – but I don’t see why you’d ever apply it to someone you want to have a relationship with.

Although Charlie is far too supplicating, and seems to know how to turn off a girl in moments, he is the best suited for LTR-selection, no?

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Cooper

I think the hamster has grown very big and fat in this SMP, because there’s been a real bifurcation of the male population into those good with women (20%) and everyone else. In prior generations, assortative mating was the norm and while there were always some foolish girls who got with bad boys or acted slutty, they were unusual and paid the price of shame. I think that’s resulted in two distinct and problematic tendencies among women:

1. To search for the humanity and deep down emotion in men like Adam.

2. To search for the sex appeal in men like Charlie.

Charlie ticks all the boxes for LT traits, but none of the tingle-worthy factor for ST mating. Adam is the reverse. If women want to mate (and they do), they’re going to be stuck between alphas and betas, wishing they could have a combo.

Alias

pvw:
“Didn’t the actress in real life say that she used to look at SATC and think that was reflective of real life?
how in the world has things come to that?
Growing up, I was told by my parents that the shows I saw on television were fictional and not to be taken seriously–pure fantasy and silliness, to be laughed at, critiqued and not used as a model for real life.”
———

> A lot of young people, through no fault of their own, spend too much time with same-aged peers in organized activities where they get very little one-on-one with adults. Media is the closest they get to actually peering into the life of those who are a generation or so older than them.

Ramble

It’s flaw in every such show, hip young people living places they can’t possibly afford.

I understand, but it does not need to be. Both Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley were set in Wisconsin (HD in the Suburbs, and L&S in the city).

Mary Tyler Moor in Minneapolis.

The Andy Griffith Show was set in North Carolina (albeit, in a fictional town).

Nowadays, the best we get from that category is Hot in Cleveland. The whole premise being that since the high flying ladies were aiming for NYC or Paris, but ended up in Cleveland, those midwest hokies will think that they are hot.

Obviously I am exaggerating things here, but you get the idea.

Houston is the 4th biggest city in North America, and I am not sure if any show in the last 20 years has been based there.

Phoenix, Salt Lake…none of these places get to be settings for TV shows even though they are quite large and grew like hot cakes in the last 20 years.

IME, writers and producers love to hear that General are always fighting the last war, but they are rarely any better.

This is where Girls seems to deserve a lot of credit.

Ramble

Well, I live in Harvard’s backyard.

I have a couple of friends from Boston, and, trust me, they do not have the friends that you do.

I also used to work in NYC, and I never knew the managing director of some hedge fund. (Although, I now have a friend of a friend who is.)

Alias

Susan:
“I can’t disagree with a single thing you said. Very reasonable, all of it. I’m alarmed at my own ability to rationalize this.”
———

> Glad you don’t think I’m too cynical, honestly, I’m just ultra-careful with who I emotionally invest in- so far, so good.

Happy belated Mother’s Day to you.

Ramble

They’re not in Brooklyn Heights.

That is where the real Hannah lives, and I bet she got a lot of her genuine material from there and the place she grew up in, Manhattan.

Alias

Cooper:
“Although Charlie is far too supplicating, and seems to know how to turn off a girl in moments, he is the best suited for LTR-selection, no?”
———
> He has the raw material to be well-suited, but he needs to gain a lot of self-respect before he’s actually qualified. If he stays as he is, he’ll just settle for some undeserving woman and will eventually become resentful- so the relationship will be awful for both.

Interesting link. I wouldn’t count on all those eggs being viable or depend on the technology to the extent that I’d advise women to put off marriage, but I do think this could be a real boon to women. My own battle with endometriosis would have been emotionally easier if I had some banked eggs to fall back on.

J

Also, having a child much past one’s early 40s must be very, very difficult. I was exhausted having mine at 30 and 32. Not to mention the fact that you’re then the oldest mom in every group – I can recall certain moms who seemed more like grandmas when my kids were in elementary school

My kids bracketed my 40th b’day, and I was always the oldest mom in the room. It’s hard, but it beats the alternative.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@J

My kids bracketed my 40th b’day, and I was always the oldest mom in the room. It’s hard, but it beats the alternative.

I hear you. I just finished State of Wonder by Ann Patchett, have you read it? It’s about a scientist who studies a tribe in the rainforest where the women get pregnant well into their 70s. Just reading it made my pelvis hurt.

Happy Mother’s Day to all the moms who hang here!

J

@Ogre

Nice analyses. I basically concur with the exception of this: “I’d liken him to what Vox would call a Sigma, in that Adam simply isn’t playing any games at all here, he’s ‘being who he is,’ and is totally unaware that there is even a game being played.”

A sigma may not play by the rules, but he still understands them, often better than most people. A sigma wins by his conscious refusal to play the game. He views it as being not worth his time. He’s a detached and amused observer of the game whose lack of participation is a DHV. That is what draws people to him. He’s catlike and cool.

Adam is clueless and socially dysfunction, but he has a damaged puppy quality to him. That’s why he draws Hannah and not Marnie.

Herb

@Susan

Well, I live in Harvard’s backyard. My kids went to school with the kids of those professors, and I’m less than a mile from the medical area, which boasts some of the best hospitals in the world. Boston is a very vibrant city, and can be very, very intimidating.

I used to spend a lot of time hanging out in your backyard. While I wasn’t a pit rat I spent a good amount of time there and even more at ManRay, TT the Bears, and the Middle East.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Herb

That’s funny, my kids take in shows at the Middle East.

Alias

OGRE:
“I don’t see Adam as a player, or as an Alpha male as the terminology is used. He strikes me as someone
-completely oblivious to the societal rules of relating to other people.
-totally unaware that there is even a game being played.
————-

I don’t think oblivion counts as Sigma.
Sigmas know the game but refuse to adhere to the rules because they find the game dumb, they’re not looking to gain other people’s approval.

Ramble

In prior generations, assortative mating was the norm and while there were always some foolish girls who got with bad boys or acted slutty, they were unusual and paid the price of shame.

… and pregnancy > Single Mother > No Paternity Test > No Welfare

There was a reason why many people were so “judgmental”.

J

@SW

Was anyone else on Team Jessa in this episode? I loved it that she got her ex to cheat, as his motives were clearly questionable from the start.

I got a bit of a kick out of it, but I feel Jessa’s sexual victories are phyrric. She wins some short-term validation, but what will come of this in the longrun?

Lokland

@Cooper

“You know I’d really like to hear a rational explanation of why women would have these “hamsters.” When does it serve a purpose – when does it create a favorable outcome?”

The hamsters sole purpose in life is to make it okay for a woman to fuck the cad believing he will commit. In the time before the pill, after the cad takes off, woman only choice is to be a dead single mom or find a dad to raise the kid.

This strategy is more effective than either the gentically inferior dad or dead single mom route.

Hello hamster, welcome to the evolutionary tree.

OffTheCuff

Sue: “It looks muscular under a squishy layer.”

In the way that the girls are more realistic looking in this series, so is he. This is what a fit guy normally looks like, without the very low bodyfat % that male actors and competitive bodybuilders tend to do for cameras or competitions. Maybe Mike C can explain more than me, but I imagine that I’ve been in more men’s locker rooms than you.

Actually, I haven’t seen a schlubby male yet. In a way, the men are shown at a much higher standard in this series than the women.

Cooper

The more I think about Underdogs’ comment (#80), the more I think he’s spot on.

“Don’t you get it? I don’t wanna go fucking other girls then walk around feeling thrilled”
After the breakup Charlie is going to do exactly that – and probably be happy doing it. Then Marnie is going to catch word of it, and she’ll do the same (most likely with Booth) and will end up feeling even worse. Then she’ll try to get Charlie back, and he’ll have found a girl who appreciateds him by then. (there’s a good chance that it’ll end up being Shoshanna)

I think there is a general misunderstanding that Alphas are those that DO, and betas are those who DON’T (or can’t). When the reality is that there two separate personalities, eag doing exactly what they feel fit. Except betas come off as not being able to be alpha, when they actually being who they are (just like what a alpha does). Nice guys arent defective, we’re that way by choice.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Cooper

I think there is a general misunderstanding that Alphas are those that DO, and betas are those who DON’T (or can’t). When the reality is that there two separate personalities, eag doing exactly what they feel fit. Except betas come off as not being able to be alpha, when they actually being who they are (just like what a alpha does).

+1

Jonny

@SusanW “Charlie ticks all the boxes for LT traits, but none of the tingle-worthy factor for ST mating. Adam is the reverse. If women want to mate (and they do), they’re going to be stuck between alphas and betas, wishing they could have a combo.”

Women who seek the combo will be disappointed. Men like me who have experienced failed relationships will understand the difference and will seek quality women and shun the flaks. The shunning goes beyond “slut shaming”. It is the shunning of unsuitable mates. Women won’t even get their chance of a long-term relationship. The statistics prove that men are less likely to marry.

Its funny that women will also stay in bad relationships since they are afraid to break it off with an unsuitable male, who will not marry because he is under employed or has family obligations or unwilling to settle down and have kids. These are known factors to hold back women, yet it continues.

To move forward, women need to break from the past as well as their rationalizations. Or say hello to raising cats.

J

@SW, Ian

That was a great comment on the hamster.

Yes , it was!

@SW

I’m still not immune to hamsterwheeling, projecting my own fantasy of nurturing a damaged boy and turning him around. This is a powerful female instinct.

Geez, Susan, first Roissy and now this! Put that hamster on a leash. :-0

Scipio Africanus

Btw,
Per Alyssa Rosenberg, the viewership for this show so far is apparently 60% male:

That’s interesting about men liking the show. It’s certainly been the case here, and also among the men I know. I think young guys can really relate to the male characters – again, a testament to Dunham’s perceptive writing. Also, my sense is that men feel Dunham is fair to men and realistic. There’s no misandry in the show, which is rare. As I said in the post, she has Hannah crying “assault” when there is obviously no threat – a clear dig at the way women often think the worst of men.

TDotinthahouse

@ ExNewYorker

“The sad part is that, these days, it better to err on the side of douchebag than nice guy, since the latter won’t even get on the train”

Cue the MGTOW movement. The cost-benefit breakdown for most guys who are not high-SMV (i.e., “nice” guys) is to get out of the game completely lest they risk a mental break with reality, a nervous breakdown, or other assorted psychosis as part of the cruel merry-go-round of contradicting female intent, self-delusion on the part of women trying to justify their cad-worship, and years upon years of being the have-nots.

Essentially, no man wants to draw their last breath in some mental institution while strapped to their bed covered in a strait jacket just because they wanted some female attention in their lives at some point.

Besides, shouldn’t this be celebrated by the Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher atheist crowd? What could be a more clear example of survival of the fittest? It’s practically Darwinian. Nice guys are getting the memo, which can be encapsulated thusly: “You are not good enough, fellas. Step aside. You’re blocking the players’ beeline path to his next notch”.

That’s what the grass-eating movement in Japan is all about. Guys just doing their thing, chillin’ and reacting to societal shaming by shaking their heads and saying: “Well, maybe you should have thought about that when you were denying me and my buddies sexually while having good tang chasing trash dick.”

If you were Charlie from “Girls”, would you try and find another woman to be with? After what he’s been through? Puh-lease.

Like Tyler Durden said in “Fight Club”: “We’re a generation of men raised by women. I’m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.”

Get on the train, ExNewYorker? You know damned well that even if we did, the conductor would not validate our ticket and force us off at the next station anyways. Why bother?

J

@SW
I haven’t read it, but it sounds like a good summer read. The notion of giving birth at 70, painful as it is, is still preferable to the idea of having a teenager at 86. Every once in a while, when I see a particularly beautiful kid, I wish I could have another. Then I remember that they don’t stay cute and little for all that long.

http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

I thought the show was very funny and thought provoking this week. I was so glad when Marnie finally dumped Charlie who is a total gamma–these guys possess little to no sex appeal no matter how attractive they are physically. Their thing is to immediately pedestalize any woman they become interested in. Loving and pedestalizing someone are two different things and those types should be avoided at all cost.

Adam and Hanna have a relationship dynamic that is the opposite of Marnie and Charlie’s. Adam is clearly emotionally unavailable and I have always believed that women who are attracted to emotionally unavailable men are too. If the Hannas were really ready to get into a serious relationship why not find a guy who is ready to give that to them. Alternatively, it could be what Susan, said about women wanting to fix or nurture some emotionally crippled guy.

I am a big advocate of no sex before monogamy. What I do not get is why so many today acts as if the concept of a woman making a guy earn sex and intimacy from her never existed in our culture. The relationship dynamics were far better and made for healthier unions, in my opinion.

J

If you were Charlie from “Girls”, would you try and find another woman to be with? After what he’s been through? Puh-lease.

While I sympathize with Charlie, what he’s been through is not all that different from what most people, male or female, go through. Most of us get over it and eventually find someone good.

Ramble

I think young guys can really relate to the male characters – again, a testament to Dunham’s perceptive writing. Also, my sense is that men feel Dunham is fair to men and realistic.

Modern pop culture is basically dominated by a female audience. I am curious as to how many girls would even want to see a realistic depiction of a debased culture that they greatly contributed to.

There is a reason why Lifetime is the “Channel for Victims Women”.

FeralEmployee

@TDotinthahouse

An is is not an ought. Furthermore: fitness is a function of many variables. In this culture, short term fitness leads to cad worship, while long term it may mark the decay of Western civilization and perhaps even its downfall. It’d become another textbook case illustrating how cultural shifts can reverse our progress. But never reduce evolution to such simple interpretations. The financial system has tried it and failed miserably.

Aside from that, it must be noted that the human species falls in between two extremes: dominant-submissive and cooperative. To state that the human species is 100% the first, is erroneous.

PS: Maher is an idiot.

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

That’s really interesting. I wonder if American women are more likely to act crazy, so guys are more wary. Based on the European films I see, I doubt it.

If my husband is to be used as a source I think is because American women use the drama! to do stuff that hurt the male (bring out past mistakes or intimacies, cheat, break up…) Hubby was terrified of discussions for a long while till he realized I wasn’t going to take my things and leave or call him names. So my guess is that he though that is how all women fight Latin women do fight but usually don’t go in for the kill you are going to share a bed with that man at night after all.

Granted, this is one data point, but it got me thinking that there is a rare type of woman out there: SWPL but with traditional values and high impulse control who can’t navigate the contemporary urban fuck and suck scene.

OK, I’ll play along- there aren’t any sociopaths and no world hunger, no sickness, no wars, no death, and no reality TV…..

Heh I want to move to that place you mention is there streets made out of chocolate too? 😉

Compared to a lot of my neighbors and friends, I’m a real slacker.

How does that makes you feel? Do you think you you need to proof yourself to them or you make peace with this already?

I’ve heard the complaint of betas being “no challenge” over and over. It makes me think that women value a unwilling man the most, as he is the biggest challenge, and thus the most rewarding catch.

This is only for women that see men as their little projects, is good to be someone that adds beauty and happiness to a man’s life but adding and changing him to your “likings” are two entirely different things, YMMV.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Anacaona

So my guess is that he though that is how all women fight Latin women do fight but usually don’t go in for the kill you are going to share a bed with that man at night after all.

Ah, there’s a great deal of wisdom in this statement. Lay your weapons down.

Compared to a lot of my neighbors and friends, I’m a real slacker.

How does that makes you feel? Do you think you you need to proof yourself to them or you make peace with this already?

I’ll be honest. I feel self-conscious around some of these folks. For example, my best friend in Boston is a woman I met 20 years ago – our daughters became friends in day care. (They are still close friends at 22!) We coordinated playdates and got friendly. She is an ER doc and her husband is a world renowned surgeon. I think if I worked in health care I would feel too intimidated to hang out with him. So ignorance is bliss, I just act like my slightly wacky self. They are our closest friends.

Also, I’ve been in many social situations where there are all these heavy hitters present, and someone asks “What do you do, Susan?” and I wind up with a crowd gathered round wanting to hear all about the blog. Once, a shrink who is a Harvard prof. asked, “What are your qualifications to write such a blog?” I said, “I’m a mom and I read a lot.” She looked dubious but she’s a subscriber

Cooper

@Liza
“I am a big advocate of no sex before monogamy. What I do not get is why so many today acts as if the concept of a woman making a guy earn sex and intimacy from her never existed in our culture.”

Well, I know in Pick-Up there are things called DLVs, and DHVs. (Demonstrations of higher/lower value)
Female hypergamy dictates a guy must demonstrate higher-value – DHVs.

All sorts of behaviors get categorized as being either a DHV OR DLV.
Probably one of the biggest DHVs is preselection (that the man is desired by other women).
Pedestalizing, such as complementing, doing too many favors, willing to invest before sex, and other supplicating behaviors are consider to be DLVs.

And on the other hand, being emotionally unavailable would probably be classified as a DHV, because it indirectly implies preselection.

A guy who pedestalizes a girl – one that wants to wrap his life around hers – would be demonstrating lower-value.
A guy who acts emotionally unavailable before sex – one who’s sex-life does revolve around this particular girl, or “doesn’t care” – would be demonstrating higher-value.

Cool stuff, isn’t it?

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Cooper

Wow, you’ve come a long way in a few weeks. You’re fluent in the concepts now, and you’ve swallowed the red pill without gagging or vomiting. If you can live with the truth, it truly will set you free.

JP

“Another woman is the daughter of a good friend. She went to Berkeley, then Harvard Law School, and became a successful constitutional lawyer – she has argued in front of the Supreme Court several times. She despaired of ever finding a mate. Ultimately, she fell in love with an associate who worked for her – he left the firm because she was a partner. He is younger than she is. She’s now in her early 40s – they have two daughters, ages 1 and 4. She brings home (a lot of) bacon, and he works in a much lower paying job.”

This sounds like a woman partner I know of in a law firm. Her problem was that they fired the associate when she revealed that she was dating him even though some of the partners are married to each other. Funny.

Youngish BigLaw partner? My guess would be $600,000. I’m a few years out of “compare the salary”.

Associate? $200,000.

Four more credits and I can go to med school. Then I’d be a doctor/lawyer/chemical engineer.

http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Cooper, emotionally unavailable behavior is a DHV only to women who have issues. It’s a Demonstration of No Future to women who seek true love and long-term relationships. I’ve ditched guys for acting hot and cold, or for not seeming interested.

When I was dating my husband and things were really serious, he called me several times a day, and we would talk for hours every single day. He was totally emotionally open, honest and available, which may scare away other girls but drew me in like a fly to light.

He wasn’t supplicating, but he did compliment me, showed that he cared about me, told me how much he wanted to be with me, etc. I did the same in return. I don’t know other relationships start, but that’s how ours started, and we continue to be like this today.

JP

“An is is not an ought. Furthermore: fitness is a function of many variables. In this culture, short term fitness leads to cad worship, while long term it may mark the decay of Western civilization and perhaps even its downfall. ”

Western Civilization is ending because its ideas are developed. All high cultures end.

I’m a fan of Spengler on that one.

“Civilization
The body of the people, now essentially urban in constitution, dissolves into formless mass. Megalopolis and Provinces. The Fourth Estate (“Masses”), inorganic, cosmopolitan”

“2. Formation of Caesarism. Victory of force-politics over money. Increasing primitiveness of political forms. Inward decline of the nations into a formless population, and constitution thereof as an Imperium of gradually-increasing crudity of despotism”

I must watch this show somehow. Too bad Megaupload got the Scarface mansion treatment.

JP

“Compared to a lot of my neighbors and friends, I’m a real slacker.

How does that makes you feel? Do you think you you need to proof yourself to them or you make peace with this already?”

I’m permanently consumed with a sense of envy, jealousy, and personal failure. I’ve never been able to make peace with my profound underachievement.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@JP

I’m permanently consumed with a sense of envy, jealousy, and personal failure. I’ve never been able to make peace with my profound underachievement.

Whoa! You’ve got to lose that! Seriously, fuck em. Or if it’s true, achieve more. Were you serious about medical school? Go for it! On Sunday I will attend my son’s college graduation from a fine university. It took him 7 years. We all have our own paths to travel.

http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

Cooper @195

I do not believe a guy complimenting a woman he is attracted to is demonstrating lower-value. How is she supposed to know you are attracted to her or find her attractive? All you are demonstrating is that you’re into playing mind games and that in and of itself is demonstrating lower-value.

A guy waiting to be intimate with a woman he is interested in does not mean he has to resort to supplicating and pedestalising that woman. Spending quality time with a woman while qualifying her as a long-term relationship prospect is what most emotionally healthy men do and that does not always include him spending a lot of money on her or showering her with compliments and bending over backwards.

If you are just looking to get laid or seeking short-term gratification, then you can use some of those PUA methods. I don’t understand men who claim they are seeking long-term relationships but they are applying PUA methods to get it.

I don’t understand men who claim they are seeking long-term relationships but they are applying PUA methods to get it.

Which is no different than saying that you don’t understand men seeking long term relationships employing Game, which is what our fair host recommends.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

Which is no different than saying that you don’t understand men seeking long term relationships employing Game, which is what our fair host recommends.

Yes! Beta guys should use Game to clear the dominance hurdle and then balance the mix of traits. I’ve said it many times before, but I’ll give a Girls version here:

Charlie with a bit of Adam worked in is far, far superior than Adam with a little bit of Charlie.

Beta guys with requisite dominance totally beats out alpha jerks pretending to be nice guys. I know it’s not easy, it’s not like snapping your fingers. But the red pill gives you what you need. Step up to that part of yourself or develop it if need be. Women can sniff supplication from miles away. I don’t think there’s anyone who watched that sex scene with Charlie and Marnie who didn’t cringe. Girls is worth a bunch of PUA videos. Be Ray. Don’t be Charlie.

Lokland

“I don’t understand men who claim they are seeking long-term relationships but they are applying PUA methods to get it.”

Two reasons.

1) What they were doing before wasn’t working.
2) PUA works for getting LTRs.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Lokland

I’ve been thinking about you. Another week? How are you feeling?

Underdog

@Cooper

“I think there is a general misunderstanding that Alphas are those that DO, and betas are those who DON’T (or can’t). When the reality is that there two separate personalities, eag doing exactly what they feel fit. Except betas come off as not being able to be alpha, when they actually being who they are (just like what a alpha does). Nice guys arent defective, we’re that way by choice.”

I think that’s an interesting way to categorize it.

– Those who can’t, and don’t want to. (Omega)
– Those who can’t, but want to. (Beta)
– Those who can, and do. (Players)
– Those who can, but chooses not to. (Alpha)

Am I missing something?

Pearl

“Western Civilization is ending because its ideas are developed. All high cultures end.”

Interesting. What do you think is next on our menu?

I agree with the poster who said Jordan Petersen got it wrong in this video, despite is academic qualifications. Or maybe even as a result of them. I find much of academia to be out of touch.

Cooper

“I don’t understand men who claim they are seeking long-term relationships but they are applying PUA methods to get it.”

Um, cause the women their age are only sleeping with guys who embody what it teaches.
I can only attempt to emmulate what it currently successful.

@Underdog
I can remember a chart that someone linked to a while back. (I can’t be bothered to look it up, especially on my phone) That particular one had a Sigma and Gamma.
The blog Alpha Game featured on the sidebar also has a decent Socio-Sexual Hierarchy article.

OGRE

@J and @Alias.

Thats why I said I “liken” him to a Sigma and didn’t say he “is” a Sigma. Per Vox’s definition, a Sigma knows the game but chooses not to play it. But Adam is purely oblivious.

However, why would the end result be any different? Whether aware of the game or not, such a man’s actions would be the same, i.e. doing what he wants rather than playing the game. And more importantly, the reaction other people have would be the same, as others are not privy to whats going on in his head, and their responses are not contingent on knowing whether he is aware or unaware. So really, whats the difference? The measurement is other people’s responses is it not?

Frankly, I don’t quite agree with Vox’s definition of Sigma. In fact, knowing the game and choosing not to play it is an extremely Alpha way of doing things. Even the examples VD gives of Sigma behaviors come across more as rock-staresque Alpha actions.

JP

@ Pearl:

“Western Civilization is ending because its ideas are developed. All high cultures end.”

Interesting. What do you think is next on our menu?”

Don’t know.

Best guess would be an articulation of the open spiral as opposed to the reaching toward infinite space of the West, or the infinite horizon of Russia, the straight line toward eternity of Egypt, the meandering path toward your destination of China, etc.

It’s winter. The seeds are being planted now. Apparently it takes a couple of hundred years to get any growth.

Cooper

“I do not believe a guy complimenting a woman he is attracted to is demonstrating lower-value. How is she supposed to know you are attracted to her or find her attractive?”

Oh, complementing is definitely considered a DLV. For a preselected man – one of truly high value – would have no interest in displaying his attraction.

Cooper

Correction to #210,

Interest isn’t the right word. I should have said “no need to”

Pearl

Dawn of Megalopolitan Civilization – is that a metropolis full of megalomaniacs?

A Definite Beta Guy

So I just watched this episode.

These women are all screwed up in the head and I am now hoping for a genre switch into zombie apocalypse. This fictional society is THAT bad.

I hope to god our real society isn’t that bad.

anon

PUA does not work for LTR. An ex pickup artist explains in detail why he left the industry.

In this case it is. Adam ends up with Hannah who has a low SMP. Is a sigma is a type of alpha, shouldn’t he end up with a 10? Vox Day says that people often wrongly equate gammas and omegas with sigmas. There’s an aroma of loserhood that hangs around them though that women sense and avoid. The end result is not the same.

A Definite Beta Guy

Also, Marine, Re: Long-distance

Just got out of a LDR, have one friend jumping into one right now, and one that’s been in one for a few months.

Don’t do it unless you feel VERY comfortable with the person already.

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Ah, there’s a great deal of wisdom in this statement. Lay your weapons down.

I haven’t had a lot of arguments with hubby but I do remember going to bed with him after some uncomfortably and it was so hard, I usually sleep hugging him but I wasn’t sure if he would hug me back or try to keep distance. I can’t imagine being like that for any amount of time so if we need to discuss something heavy I do it early in the morning in case we need space to process it so by night time we can sleep like a normal couple I can imagine this is similar in many Latin houses hence the “be careful what you are saying while you fight”

Also, I’ve been in many social situations where there are all these heavy hitters present, and someone asks “What do you do, Susan?” and I wind up with a crowd gathered round wanting to hear all about the blog. Once, a shrink who is a Harvard prof. asked, “What are your qualifications to write such a blog?” I said, “I’m a mom and I read a lot.” She looked dubious but she’s a subscriber

Heh that is really cool and makes me feel better I can be really wacky myself and I have charisma maybe I can make child rearing and staying at home as something interesting. I also have my writing so telling a story is usually a very good way to entertain a crowd or at least looking less like a “comecomida” “mealeater” which is a slur for SHAMs in my country.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Anacaona

I also have my writing so telling a story is usually a very good way to entertain a crowd or at least looking less like a “comecomida” “mealeater” which is a slur for SHAMs in my country.

This has been very effective for me. Some people turn away, others want to get to know you better. I’ve used this as a filter for compatibility and I have found that it works very well.

Underdog

@Anon

“PUA does not work for LTR. An ex pickup artist explains in detail why he left the industry.”

PUA is supposed to make you a well-rounded man, not a social-drone. That dude was obviously abusing the power he learned and didn’t have any self-controll or introspection he went off the deep end (major beta trait).

For every Mystery, there is a Neil Strauss.

JP

“Once, a shrink who is a Harvard prof. asked, “What are your qualifications to write such a blog?” I said, “I’m a mom and I read a lot.” She looked dubious but she’s a subscriber :)”

Classic credentialism. Was it a Ph.D. shrink or an M.D. shrink?

Either way, it’s (partially) pseudoscience. Psychology/psychiatry, that is. I just got used to the DSM-IV-TR.

I’m going to treat the DSM-V as a Christmas present. It’s going to be interesting to see what they’ve done this time.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@JP

I’m old-fashioned. You have to have an MD to be called a shrink. The field has changed a lot – it’s my understanding that most psychiatrists today are focused on prescribing medication rather than talk therapy.

JP

“@JP

I’m permanently consumed with a sense of envy, jealousy, and personal failure. I’ve never been able to make peace with my profound underachievement.

Whoa! You’ve got to lose that! Seriously, fuck em. Or if it’s true, achieve more. Were you serious about medical school? Go for it! On Sunday I will attend my son’s college graduation from a fine university. It took him 7 years. We all have our own paths to travel.”

I’m at that stage of life where you say to yourself, “hey, maybe I shouldn’t have withdrawn from life, played computer games, and slept though college and law school”.

Apparently some people use that time of their life to get some sense of what they want to go do with themselves rather than my anxiety/depression/withdraw approach to college.

I kind of skipped that step and went straight into career, marriage, and children. This is particularly a problem when you have no actual interest in your career.

Ramble

Girls is worth a bunch of PUA videos. Be Ray. Don’t be Charlie.

I have never seen one second of the show, but I am guessing that Ray is in a relationship? (I know that Charlie is.)

PUA-ism is mostly about approaching and getting (banging) girls, not as much about keeping them.

Hell, Roissy does a fairly poor job explaining that.

Oh, and Susan

… Seriously, fuck em. …

Good for you. However, minor nit-pick: the proper grammar is “Fuck’em” with an apostrophe. Otherwise, well done.

anon

@ underdog

it does appear the industry has come a long way. sasha cobra is now doing the pua seminar circuit teaching sexual energy and tantra. could you explain why this client may be making these particular noises during this session? ive never heard a man do that before.

if the above videos are too new agey for you, she gets more down to earth here explaining why women humiliate men. i think we all, both male and female, can relate to this. im glad the pua world is listening to women now, and women like her. she comes off a lot softer and wiser than the other women (party girl types) i’ve seen in their videos. i don’t agree with everything she says here but the crux is on point. notice the reactions of the men to her. they are very receptive to her energy. she’s not particularly goodlooking but i bet all the men in the audience wish they had a girl like her.

this is Jen

going to be stuck between alphas and betas, wishing they could have a combo.
. 174 Susan Walsh May 15, 2012 at 1:52 pm

@J

My kids bracketed my 40th b’day, and I was always the oldest mom in the room. It’s hard, but it beats the alternative.

I hear you. I just finished State of Wonder by Ann Patchett, have you read it? It’s about a scientist who studies a tribe in the rainforest where the women get pregnant well into their 70s. Just reading it made my pelvis hurt.

Happy Mother’s Day to all the moms who hang here!
——————————————————–

I had two when I was young, and was the youngest mom…then 2 more when I was older and the last one I was almost 44 when I had him….Its a completely different experience being a mom at this age.

Happy Mother’s Day to you too Susan

JP

“@JP

I’m old-fashioned. You have to have an MD to be called a shrink. The field has changed a lot – it’s my understanding that most psychiatrists today are focused on prescribing medication rather than talk therapy.”

Yep, they are prescription based.

The mental health system is a complete mess here and underfunded, so the psychiatrists change jobs on a regular basis, which plays hob with the client’s mental states.

I’ve got one client who’s had three different shrinks in two months. She’s manic-depressive, but the current med configuration has caused her to go completely manic. My staff is ready to kill me for making her a client.

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

“I don’t understand men who claim they are seeking long-term relationships but they are applying PUA methods to get it.”

Two reasons.

1) What they were doing before wasn’t working.
2) PUA works for getting LTRs.
—-
LTRs with what kind of women?

J

maybe I can make child rearing and staying at home as something interesting.

I was shocked at how interesting staying home with kids actually was.

J

@this is Jen, SW and all the other moms and moms to be–

Hope you all had a terrific Mother’s Day!

A definite beta guy

Liza, let’s start with this:

What do you think PUA is? Why do you think it works well for short term and not for long term? What should guys do differently if they want long term?

anon

Yep kids are so much more present, authentic and insightful than adults. Just more pleasant and plain fun to be around, except for when they get bratty.

OffTheCuff

Sue: “Charlie with a bit of Adam worked in is far, far superior than Adam with a little bit of Charlie.”

For the woman, it is. For a man, the latter is obviously superior.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@OTC

For the woman, it is. For a man, the latter is obviously superior.

I’ve been thinking about this for the last hour. I get it, I do. The sexes are at cross purposes to some extent.

anon

“What do you think PUA is? Why do you think it works well for short term and not for long term? ”

From a PUA site, “Picking up girls is easy. Having them actually like you for who you are is harder. But once you know this little secret, it becomes easy again. All you have to do is:

Just be awesome.

That’s right. For some people this comes naturally, such as the naturals. Most guys have to learn how to be awesome, but it’s just like learning English — well worth it.

Remember, you’re always awesome to girls who are below your league, and chances are there are a lot of them out there. With this in mind, one way to becoming awesome to the kind of girls you really want is by simply starting to be out of their league before you even meet them.

Who is out of the league of random hot chicks? Pretty much any guy who has scarce resources other chicks care about, such as money, fame, a VIP table, drugs, or a large package.

Now all you have to do is have a bro who introduces you as having at least one of these things and BAM – chick is yours. Remember, never brag about yourself – have your wingman do it for you.

A variation of this is to meet the girl’s fat friend and impress her with your charm and awesomeness, after which you invite them both to join you at your table for drinks and walk away. She will tell the hottie all about you, turning her instantly into a temporary Bro. You can tell her about your money, fame or anything else except the package — life is too short to pork fat chicks. WHADUP!”

Knock. Knock.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

Who is out of the league of random hot chicks? Pretty much any guy who has scarce resources other chicks care about, such as money, fame, a VIP table, drugs, or a large package.

Now all you have to do is have a bro who introduces you as having at least one of these things and BAM – chick is yours. Remember, never brag about yourself – have your wingman do it for you.

A variation of this is to meet the girl’s fat friend and impress her with your charm and awesomeness, after which you invite them both to join you at your table for drinks and walk away. She will tell the hottie all about you, turning her instantly into a temporary Bro.

I hope this is satire. It made me sad.

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

A definite beta guy,

What do you think PUA is? Pick-Up Artist.

Why do you think it works well for short term and not for long term?

A guy feigning disinterest and pretending to be of high value (if you feel you have constantly demonstrate high value it is likely that you are actually of low value) has to know at some point the facade has to come down, and then what? What kind of foundation is that to start/build a long-term relationship on?

If a guy is pretending that he is not attracted to me, then I will take him at face value even when I know he is feigning. I don’t have time for head games. I have encountered PUA’s and guys running Game and I am immediately turned-off by them. I have absolutely no interest in going to war just to be in a relationship.

If PUA and Game methods are getting you the long-term relationship you are longing for then continue to go for it. But I believe that those relationships are doomed from the start.

I still want to know, what kind of women are men attracting for LTRs using PUA and Game methods?

anon

Liza, “I still want to know, what kind of women are men attracting for LTRs using PUA and Game methods?”

According the to pua I qouted above, “Who is out of the league of random hot chicks? Pretty much any guy who has scarce resources other chicks care about, such as money, fame, a VIP table, drugs, or a large package.
Now all you have to do is have a bro who introduces you as having at least one of these things and BAM – chick is yours.”

Jones

Just going to drop a bunch of random statements here…

The references to the “hamster” are quite possibly the most dumb-sounding and irritating thing I’ve ever heard…I have yet to hear any explanation of what cognitive dissonance has to do with a fucking hamster. I am also sure that when I find out, it will be stupid.

People have commented on the unrealistic aspect of having them in Brooklyn Heights, apparently without having watched or understood the show, which makes a big deal about the fact that they are all supported by their parents. That’s how people live in Brooklyn Heights.

I have a lot of thoughts on this show. I’ve been hoping that other people around the internet would have interesting things to say, but I’ve mostly been disappointed by the critical responses.

I’m going to vent now about the idiocy of those responses. I suppose that first I should say that my perspective probably has been shaped by the fact that I lived in circles very much like the one described by the show. The critical response to the show displays a bunch of moronic reading habits. First is the absurd desire for political correctness. People are spilling all of various contents of their brains on this one show, for some reason. Yes, this is an increasingly unequal, fragmented, and segregated society…the show accurately reflects that, which is a prerequisite for it doing anything artistically interesting at all. All the commentary on how there are no non-white characters, and on how privileged the characters are, is profoundly stupid. It’s embarrassing for our culture that people are allowed to say stuff like this in public without shame. Yes, there are privileged people on the planet. I hope it didn’t take a fucking TV show to make you aware of that. I’ll go further: privileged people are often more interesting than un-privileged people.

Another theme is people venting their hatred of a certain segment of young people (called “hipsters”). The show is relatively self-aware about the failings of people in this group. I guess my general problem is with people – especially on this site – reading everything through the lens of their own private, absurd, insecure little take on the world. “No man has ever respected a woman for standing up for herself, never ever!” “These alpha males are all egoists and don’t care about anything but themselves!”

To put it in a nutshell, people don’t know how to read. The icing on the cake is stuff like this:

“It’s also unsurprising that she was not a STEM major.”

If I see any more STEM majors jerking off about their hardcore brilliance, I’m going to freak. I think these two things I’m talking about here are connected. People don’t learn how to read anymore, but worse, they don’t know that they don’t know. They think the humanities are some sort of playground.

Sorry, I know this is all needlessly caustic and inadequately substantiated! Maybe it’s that I disagree with most of Susan’s readings of the show, but I don’t have time to detail how, though I’d like to.

Lokland

@ADBG

“These women are all screwed up in the head and I am now hoping for a genre switch into zombie apocalypse. This fictional society is THAT bad.”

Thats probably the only thing that could make me watch this show.

“Just got out of a LDR, have one friend jumping into one right now, and one that’s been in one for a few months.
Don’t do it unless you feel VERY comfortable with the person already.”

+1

I did one year at 16,000 km apart.
I trusted her nearly endlessly but I’ll admit the last few months were stressful and every little disturbance/detail had me thinking something was wrong.

“I still want to know, what kind of women are men attracting for LTRs using PUA and Game methods?”

My fiance.

Two degrees, currently subing part time trying to get into full time teaching. Her dream is either 1st or 3rd grade (why not 2 you ask?, still not a clue after 4 years).
She also works part time as my secretary helping me run my stuff.

Virgin when I met her. Never kissed another guy.

Speaks 4 languages, is kind, caring, bubbly and will make an excellent wife and mother.

Called both my mother and grandmother on mothers day from halfway around the world and talked to them for half an hour each without my prompting or reminder.

Plays piano, sketches and I’m guessing her next goal is the harp because some monstrosity showed up on my doorstep this morning which I have yet to ask her about.

Prior to meeting me had been to a club a total of one time.

Visits and speaks to my dying grandfather more than any one else in the family. Calls him her papa and I’ve never seen him smile until she met him.

Doesn’t drink, smoke, do drugs, strip her clothes of at random, dance on table tops, fuck dudes in wash rooms, hit up frat parties, make a habit of being a bitch/being late/flaky type attitude.

Sympathizes with the plight of small animals in need, kids, the elderly and very importantly men.

Hates feminism.

Well that and bar sluts.

Lokland

@Jones

“If I see any more STEM majors jerking off about their hardcore brilliance, I’m going to freak.”

Biochemistry- long stoke
Genetics- short stroke
Chemistry- aaahhhhh

Lokland

Note:

In 244 there should be an @Lisa just before

“My fiance”

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I was shocked at how interesting staying home with kids actually was.

Oh don’t get me wrong the dumbest kid is always more interesting than the dumbest adult I prefer the company of kids but I’m an artist so for me having a constant source of new discoveries in the day to day basis is a rewarding interesting experience but adults don’t talk about this things with fondness or fascination in this culture hence my fears. I’m just processing it I’m sure once the baby is out of me I will get the Maternity Directive downloaded to my brain and I will be too busy for the a few months to think about this, but eventually one day when the kid doesn’t need me that much I’m sure I will think about this again, YMMV.

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

According the to pua I qouted above, “Who is out of the league of random hot chicks? Pretty much any guy who has scarce resources other chicks care about, such as money, fame, a VIP table, drugs, or a large package.
Now all you have to do is have a bro who introduces you as having at least one of these things and BAM – chick is yours.”
—-
Oh, I see. Hot, dumb and extremely shallow chicks. Now, these are the qualities every guy should be seeking in a woman for a long-term relationship, at least she’s hot. *sarcasm off*

anon

Not satire. Its from a PUA site.

Question for Lokland. Why the hell would you need to use tacky PUA tactics on a woman like that? My only guess as to why they may have worked on her is precisely because of her lack of experience.

anon

“Oh, I see. Hot, dumb and extremely shallow chicks. Now, these are the qualities every guy should be seeking in a woman for a long-term relationship, at least she’s hot. *sarcasm off*”

Like attracts like. What’s that law of gender parity by Spenglar?

Jones

To elaborate a little, I guess I don’t really disagree with any of your observations, Susan, but I do find it funny how differently men and women respond to certain things…

One, I think it’s funny that you think Adam’s body looks weird – as others have commented, that’s a nice touch of realism about what a fit male body looks like. That said the show does a fantastic job of depicting him as a certain kind of gross.

The theme of the episode was the ways that girls use sex as a means of validation. I thought it was pretty obvious how that led to the bizarre attempt to seduce the boss. Her distress at being denied this validation is what led to the crazy attempts at blackmail, and then to her running back to Adam. The masturbation scene was crazy, I don’t know if I’ve figured out what was going on there yet.

Jessa also sought validation, successfully, but in an equally fucked up way. I think it’s funny you thought that was great – I thought it was disturbing. Having sex just to prove a point? But I know that this is done.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Jones

The theme of the episode was the ways that girls use sex as a means of validation.

Not according to Dunham.

Lokland

@Susan

“I’ve been thinking about you. Another week? How are you feeling?”

Meh. I’ll live.

Couple thoughts.

Personally I’ve come to view this situation much like a war movie I watched, The Front Line (Korean).

Essentially theres two sides that go back and forth fighting over this hill. Going at it over and over again with retreats-offensives.

Eventually two small groups start leaving stuff behind in one of the bunkers. Send letters to family in the South, matches for the one side, booze for the other. Kind of a comraderie between two enemies.

I have no idea why but this is what trying to merge male-female goals looks like to me. Small concessions in an otherwise endless battle.

On a shittier note, everyone dies at the end.
——————————————————–

Now an idea on the differences between the two sexes.

Men are disqualifiers. Women are qualifiers.

To get a man to commit a woman must NOT have done X, Y, Z. There are very few must haves for men but A LITERAL SHIT TON of must nots.

Women are the reverse. Many qualifiers but few disqualifiers.

In this way we can see that a man that has many qualifers can still be an asshole but woman will still dig it. He passes all the tests, he might still be a complete cad but he is a hot cad.
The same rarely if ever occurs in men wrt sluts (dependent on the mans own history).

Now what this results in for women is either a your good enough/acceptable or unacceptable because she has one of the disqualifiers.

Women have many different qualifiers and each one values them differently. In that way it must be possible to hit some and not others but still reach the necessary amount of attraction.

Men are like on/offs in regards to attraction (including LTR acceptability, though once in it the attraction can most definetly grow).
Women are like… I don’t know what but they are cummulative (there are also negatives that detract obviously).

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Lokland

Now an idea on the differences between the two sexes.

Men are disqualifiers. Women are qualifiers.

To get a man to commit a woman must NOT have done X, Y, Z. There are very few must haves for men but A LITERAL SHIT TON of must nots.

Women are the reverse. Many qualifiers but few disqualifiers.

Succinct and accurate, IMO.

Lokland

@anon

“My only guess”

Thats your problem right there.
Stop guessing, start knowing.

Solves many of lifes issues, not limited to women.

http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

Lisa, we know you understand more than you’re letting on. But let me spell it out for you anyway.

For the men, it’s not a choice between good women and bad women. For the men it’s a choice between whomever will have them and no one. It may drive the women crazy, but it’s driving young men to suicide.

Nearly five times as many males as females ages 15 to 19 died by suicide.1
Just under six times as many males as females ages 20 to 24 died by suicide.1

Mike C

Sue: “It looks muscular under a squishy layer.”

In the way that the girls are more realistic looking in this series, so is he. This is what a fit guy normally looks like, without the very low bodyfat % that male actors and competitive bodybuilders tend to do for cameras or competitions. Maybe Mike C can explain more than me, but I imagine that I’ve been in more men’s locker rooms than you.

I haven’t seen the show or what Adam’s? body looks like so I’m not sure what exactly is being referenced or what Susan is referring to, so I’ll speak real generally. Most women probably haven’t seen a guy who has a high level of muscle mass but also is maybe carrying 10 to 15% or even slightly higher bodyfat. Most guys don’t really have well-developed muscle mass, and they are either thin and low body-fat or just plain fat.

The “muscular” look most women are familiar with from photo shoot type stuff like magazines are from guys who have specifically dieted down for the photo shoot to 6-8% bodyfat or maybe 8-10%. Unless you are blessed with incredible genetics holding 6-8% on a regular basis isn’t realistic. Anyways, a guy who is carrying 20-40 pounds more muscle than the average guy for his height at maybe 12-15% bodyfat is going to look big with muscles but with a “squishy” layer covering it all which is that extra 3-5% bodyfat.

http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

Liza Couple Hundred and Change said:

“I still want to know, what kind of women are men attracting for LTRs using PUA and Game methods?”
__________________________

Depends on what you mean by Game methods and PUA tactics.

My girl’s got a prescription pad with her name on it. Her N is very, very low. She’s smokin’ hot and squared away. She buys me rifles for my birthday, and pistols for Christmas – that’s how cool she is.

I don’t have a fuzzy hat or know any magic tricks, but without a basic understanding of Red Pill stuff she’d never have returned my texts in the beginning.

Liza, don’t hate Game. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you do. The fact is, most men were raised wrong. Lots of them work very hard to be unattractive. Game, especially Inner Game, is a remedy for that.

anon

Lokland, enlighten us. What made your fiancee respond positively to a neg?

modernguy

Why is there so much hate for “cads” and players here? Do you imagine that women these days, with the way they behave deserve any better Susan? The “manosphere” is, despite what every man is really looking for in a woman (loyalty and fidelity), nevertheless almost totally focused on training men to give women what they want. It’s not about what men want at all, in fact what we want is jettisoned as the first act of initiation. The first rule of game is not to trust or count on any one woman. That’s what makes it so powerful. Even guys who will never be good at the actual art of seduction are at least given a shield of armor. They turn from hapless fools getting crushed under heels to men with at least a modicum of self respect and some rudimentary tools to navigate the terrain. And it’s women, with the freedom that they’ve won and their persistent and foolish fantasizing that have turned the SMP into what it’s become. Cads and players are just the men that have the talents (and the ruthlessness) to capitalize in the system that women themselves perpetuate.

The way you use the word commitment has no meaning. Commitment for what and for how long, and why? Why should any woman have any expectation of commitment from any man just because she’s interested in him? And her interest is based on the exact same cues that every other woman’s interest is based on. Should I expect sex from an attractive woman simply because she has big tits and a nice ass? At least the manosphere is offering a service to men, teaching them the skills they need to give woman what they want. In exchange they get sex. What do you teach women to offer men that would make them offer commitment in exchange. Does any woman around here even have the slightest idea what men might want in exchange for commitment? Guess what, the first thing, and the only thing that can’t be negotiated is trust. Women are acting like they can do whatever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want and then they go around bewildered by the discovery that men who have a clue don’t put their hearts and lives on the line for them. Wake up. In this SMP nobody deserves anything and nobody should expect anything.

As more men are provided with the tools that game gives them, it’s going to become harder for women to get what they ultimately want out of the SMP because there will simply be less fools to be fooled. Women have had it easy because most men were innocent and childish. But the tide is turning and it behooves women interested in getting what they want to learn what it is they need to offer in exchange. In other words to have game of your own.

The hypergamous drive has become unshackled and for the most part expresses itself freely. We men have a similar drive for variety, so it will be interesting to see what happens to the concept of commitment as the limits on the expression of these urges are removed, which they will inevitably will be.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@modernguy

Why is there so much hate for “cads” and players here? Do you imagine that women these days, with the way they behave deserve any better Susan?

Cads and players are male sluts. Male sluts are incentivized by female sluts. I have no use for either, here or anywhere.

“May the he-whores and she-whores couple in kind, and leave the rest to be.”

Jesus Mahoney

Underdog

The PUA article that anon posted was hilarious. I certainly hope that it was satire. If you need to present a misleading image or have your “bro” lie for you, then you have no game and are horrible as a PUA. I don’t think even Mystery stoops that low, as shallow and ridiculous as I think his methods are.

Underdog

“Does any woman around here even have the slightest idea what men might want in exchange for commitment?”

Loyalty. My ability to trust in a girl. The more I think about it, the more the word “virgin” comes to mind. That’s the surest factor that will get me to truly commit to the point of marriage with a girl — hymen, blood and all. The more I think about it, the more I think primitive societies were on to something when they demanded virginity in their wives. The fact of the matter is, it’s hard to trust women nowadays given how slutty the average girl is. And it’s pretty pointless to commit to a girl you don’t really trust when you can get pussy so easily nowadays without having to commit. I’ve been thinking about ending things with my girlfriend simply because of this fact. I simply don’t like/trust her sexual history and, in turn, future ability to be loyal; and I feel like the last year and a half was a waste when I could’ve stayed a PUA and be swimming neck-deep in pussies. And her sexual history, if true, is no where near as bad as other girls I know. The funny thing is, though, I think she’s starting to sense my disconnect because she’s been acting super sweet lately and making it harder to me to make my decision.

Wudang

anon:

If PUA does not work for LTR how do you explain why Athol gets such great results teaching people to aply it to their LTR?

Wudang

anon said:

” if the above videos are too new agey for you, she gets more down to earth here explaining why women humiliate men. i think we all, both male and female, can relate to this. im glad the pua world is listening to women now, and women like her. she comes off a lot softer and wiser than the other women (party girl types) i’ve seen in their videos. i don’t agree with everything she says here but the crux is on point. notice the reactions of the men to her. they are very receptive to her energy. she’s not particularly goodlooking but i bet all the men in the audience wish they had a girl like her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fw-W5rcN_4&feature=relmfu
”
You are glad the PUA world is listening to women now. Well, what this woman is teaching is what was taught to her by a man. PUAs have been looking into tantra since before the Game was published (Steve Picus for example, but many others as well). If listening to women was what worked the guys who became PUAs would have never needed to because they had already spent their life messing up their love and sex life following the counter productive advice of women.

Wudang

anon:

“Question for Lokland. Why the hell would you need to use tacky PUA tactics on a woman like that? My only guess as to why they may have worked on her is precisely because of her lack of experience.”

First people argue that PUA only works on bar sluts (who have tons of experience) but now you argue it works on inexperienced virgins?

Wudang

The Sasha Cobra lady is very good though.

Harkat

@Lokland, regarding qualifiers and disqualifiers post.

You seem to be saying women are indifferent to where on the asshole/nice scale a man falls, as long as he meets the necessary qualifiers. That’s a pretty depressing thought.

Underdog

“Cads and players are male sluts. Male sluts are incentivized by female sluts. I have no use for either, here or anywhere.”

I don’t know about this one. If we agree that women are the gatekeepers to sex and men are the gatekeepers to emotional commitment; and if a slut is a woman who abandons her gatekeeper role and sleeps around, then a man-slut must be a man who abandons his gatekeeper role and commits to unworthy women. Both of these actions can attributed to a lack of self-worth. A player doesn’t sleep around because he lacks self-worth. He doesn’t wake up the next day and regret having sex the night before. He doesn’t go through moments of depression when reality kicks in. He also doesn’t devalue himself as a man in any form by sleeping around — in fact, he raises his value due to pre-selection. Women naturally flock to him in hope of making him “change his ways” and have him commit to them. So to me, male-sluts aren’t men who sleep around. Male-sluts are actually AFCs walking around with oneitis wining-and-dining girls who’s been used up by the carousel .

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Underdog

You’re talking about emotional promiscuity among males, which I wrote about in a recent post. I agree that is the male equivalent psychologically of female sexual promiscuity. However, I find it useful to discuss sexual promiscuity in and of itself. What the numbers show is that the same percentage of men and women are sexually promiscuous – clearly with each other. They’re essentially cycling through, or trading amongst themselves. Since those males are actually poor relationship prospects for non-promiscuous women, I consider it appropriate to point out the red flags those males display.

A player doesn’t sleep around because he lacks self-worth. He doesn’t wake up the next day and regret having sex the night before. He doesn’t go through moments of depression when reality kicks in.

Hmmm, I’ve actually heard several stories to the contrary. There are several prominent male bloggers who used to be PUAs or at least believers in Game who have divorced themselves completely from it for the exact reasons you describe.

As Helen Fisher says, sex is never casual, even for males. You’ve got just as complicated a hormonal cocktail surging through your system as we do. It’s not the same, but Fisher talks about men falling in love when the vasopressin switch gets flipped. Last week Ben was here talking about how he’d fallen really hard for a fuckbuddy. Twice.

Underdog

Also, Lokland, you lucky fuck. Nice job, pimp.

JP

Isn’t oneitis just a form of limerance?

From wikipedia.

“The concept “of ‘limerence’ provides a particular carving up of the semantic domain of love”,[4] and is an attempt at a scientific study into the nature of love. Limerence is considered as a cognitive and emotional state of being emotionally attached or even obsessed with another person, typically experienced involuntarily and characterized by a strong desire for reciprocation of one’s feelings – a near-obsessive form of romantic love.[5] For Tennov, ‘sexual attraction is an essential component of limerence…the limerent is a potential sex partner’.”

I know that I started to becoming romantically attracted to specific girls when I was about 6 or 7. I was pretty much only ever interested in one girl at a time.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@JP

Isn’t oneitis just a form of limerance?

Sadly, an unrequited or at least unbalanced form. This is a state to be avoided at all costs, for both men and women.

Wudang

Oh, and anon, I know tons of advanced yogis and advanced meditators, tantricas etc. and have been on a bunch of retreats of various kinds and met people who have done all sorts of deep internal work for years and decades and game works on them too. Just as well as on other people. They are less susceptible to dark game I´d say but no less responsive to game. So arguing game only works on barsluts and naive virgins is plain bullshit.

Zach

@Susan

One note vis-a-vis sex and emotions for men. There’s been a lot of talk on this forum about the low conversion ratio (I think the number quoted was 12%) of hookups/FWB to real relationships. However, I think what hasn’t been talked about is what I believe to be the nearly equally low conversion ratio for the traditional path to dating, and not just for men. For example, I can think of 3 very attractive girl friends of mine, and a few who are less attractive, who’ve gone on at least 30-40 first dates in the 3 years since we’ve graduated from college. For each of them, only 1 (and in a couple cases none) have resulted in a lasting relationship. I can say the same thing for most of the guys I know (and myself). My roommate and I have been on at least 40+ first dates in the past 3 years. For both of us, 1 has resulted in a lasting relationship. That’s for any number of reasons (we rejected them, they rejected us, it turned into FWB, was a ONS, etc), but only one ended up being a relationship. I think that with all the bashing of hookups as a way to relationships, the traditional route (dating, courting, etc) has been overvalued. For men and women with options, who aren’t looking for a relationship just to be in one and only want it with someone truly special, the odds of finding the right person are quite low, no matter what route you take, and patience and work (yes, work) are key as well.

P.S. See a lot of myself in Ray, especially in how he deals w/Marnie. Ray doesn’t really practice game per se, he’s just confident, smart, speaks his mind and doesn’t pull punches. A good comparison in my life would be to one of my roommates (not the aforementioned one). He’s a really nice guy, and girls love him. However, they love him like a teddy bear. He’s the one who girls always say “he needs a girlfriend he’s so great”. I then ask why they don’t date him if he’s so great, and I’m greeted with hemming and hawing and “well not for me”. He is close and friends with far more girls than I am, because I offend some of them by being willing to speak my mind, even if it might offend people. However, I sleep with far, far more girls than he does. A tradeoff I’m very willing to make. One concrete example. Last week, we ran into a girl who neither of had seen for a few months. She’s a friend of a friend that we’ve met a few times before, but is not close to either of us. We both always thought she was pretty hot. I immediately was hitting on her, and got her number (we’re going out tomorrow night). My roommate acted completely like a friend. Afterwards we talked about it, and he said he couldn’t believe I did that. I asked why, and his response essentially was that he knows her friends, it’s too awkward, etc. IE he has what most people would call the beta fear of being too forward/offending people.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Zach

I think that with all the bashing of hookups as a way to relationships, the traditional route (dating, courting, etc) has been overvalued. For men and women with options, who aren’t looking for a relationship just to be in one and only want it with someone truly special, the odds of finding the right person are quite low, no matter what route you take, and patience and work (yes, work) are key as well.

This makes a lot of sense. FWIW, a college student told me recently that she was going to try the hookup route. Her number is very low, she figured she would risk one hookup and see where it went. It reminded me of going to Las Vegas with $50 bucks in my pocket when I was 22 and living in LA. I knew I had little to bet, but I was willing to lose that much. I walked out with $1,200 and paid my credit card down, but that’s another story.

Anyway, it didn’t work out for her. The guy who “really, really like you a lot” averted eye contact come Monday morning on campus. I hope she doesn’t throw good money after bad, but I understand that dating sucks too. Surely that explains the dearth of relationships in general among 20-somethings.

Re being like Ray, I approve (not that you need my approval!). Ray is OK. He’s a bit brash, a bit irreverent, but he’s a true friend to Charlie and he is 100% right in his behavior to Marnie. I think his behavior at the cafe is priceless. I’m enough of a sadist to love the way he accosts that girl for having mascara that clashes with her aquamarine sweatshirt. Though I do think he crossed a line ransacking Hannah’s privacy.

modernguy

Cads and players are male sluts. Male sluts are incentivized by female sluts. I have no use for either, here or anywhere.

Why do you draw the line there? Do you think players only sleep with sluts? What’s a slut to you and why is she worse than the average girl who has been in 8 or 9 casual relationships? From a man’s point of view the slut is actually more trustworthy. At least she’s up front about what she wants. She doesn’t deceive you about who she is or what her motivations are. These girls who go from casual relationship to casual relationship are no different than the sluts, they just deceive themselves and everyone else with nonsense like “it just didn’t work out” or “we grew apart” etc. etc. when in reality they moved on simply because they were bored. They don’t have the slightest idea of what commitment means, and they don’t deserve it.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@modernguy

They don’t have the slightest idea of what commitment means, and they don’t deserve it.

I hope you know that I’m not suggesting in any way that men commit to women who are unworthy. But I write specifically about relationships – I’m not really interested in helping people figure out how to get casual sex. That market is already saturated, lol. I write for men and women who would rather be in a relationship than bang randoms. If you’re in the latter group, that’s fine, but I doubt you’ll find much here to interest you.

modernguy

Loyalty. My ability to trust in a girl. The more I think about it, the more the word “virgin” comes to mind. That’s the surest factor that will get me to truly commit to the point of marriage with a girl — hymen, blood and all. The more I think about it, the more I think primitive societies were on to something when they demanded virginity in their wives. The fact of the matter is, it’s hard to trust women nowadays given how slutty the average girl is. And it’s pretty pointless to commit to a girl you don’t really trust when you can get pussy so easily nowadays without having to commit. I’ve been thinking about ending things with my girlfriend simply because of this fact. I simply don’t like/trust her sexual history and, in turn, future ability to be loyal; and I feel like the last year and a half was a waste when I could’ve stayed a PUA and be swimming neck-deep in pussies. And her sexual history, if true, is no where near as bad as other girls I know. The funny thing is, though, I think she’s starting to sense my disconnect because she’s been acting super sweet lately and making it harder to me to make my decision.

Exactly. You simply have no reason to commit to her. Why? What is she offering that other girls don’t? You can’t trust her any more than any other girl. She’s just banking on the hope that you won’t realize that. That you’ll see some fairy tale in her and fall in love by magic. It’s total fantasy and at some point, after a lot of disappointment women are going to realize it.

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

@Dogsquat

I just hate game when men attempt to use it on me. If it is getting men the women they desire–fine.

Also, I think men who are not players/cads tend to romanticize/glamorize the manwhore lifestyle as being ideal for most men. They are only looking at it from the outside. However, a lot of those guys (i.e. T. Max and G. Clooney) report that after some years of living a promiscuous lifestyle they only ended up feeling lonely and empty.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Liza

However, a lot of those guys (i.e. T. Max and G. Clooney) report that after some years of living a promiscuous lifestyle they only ended up feeling lonely and empty.

I’m aware of Tucker Max’s St. Augustinian turnabout, but has George Clooney said this?

anon

“You are glad the PUA world is listening to women now. Well, what this woman is teaching is what was taught to her by a man. PUAs have been looking into tantra since before the Game was published (Steve Picus for example, but many others as well). If listening to women was what worked the guys who became PUAs would have never needed to because they had already spent their life messing up their love and sex life following the counter productive advice of women.”

She says she learned her no touch technique from Shantam Nityama, a man, yes. If you listen to the audio here http://www.nityama.com/ his views on women, relationships, and especially marriage, run completely contrary to the prevailing views of men on this site. They are the polar opposite of Modernguy’s comment,
“What do you teach women to offer men that would make them offer commitment in exchange. Does any woman around here even have the slightest idea what men might want in exchange for commitment? Guess what, the first thing, and the only thing that can’t be negotiated is trust. Women are acting like they can do whatever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want and then they go around bewildered by the discovery that men who have a clue don’t put their hearts and lives on the line for them. Wake up.”
And Underdogs comment, “Loyalty. My ability to trust in a girl. The more I think about it, the more the word “virgin” comes to mind. That’s the surest factor that will get me to truly commit to the point of marriage with a girl — hymen, blood and all. The more I think about it, the more I think primitive societies were on to something when they demanded virginity in their wives. The fact of the matter is, it’s hard to trust women nowadays given how slutty the average girl is. And it’s pretty pointless to commit to a girl you don’t really trust when you can get pussy so easily nowadays without having to commit. I’ve been thinking about ending things with my girlfriend simply because of this fact. I simply don’t like/trust her sexual history and, in turn, future ability to be loyal; and I feel like the last year and a half was a waste when I could’ve stayed a PUA and be swimming neck-deep in pussies. ”

If you listen to more of Sasha, her ideas run completely contrary to the majority of stuff that is touted as PUA on the web even now. That many former PUAs are leaving that lifestyle and becoming interested in things people like Sasha and Nityama have to offer is proof that its a different paradigm.

” I know tons of advanced yogis and advanced meditators, tantricas etc. and have been on a bunch of retreats of various kinds and met people who have done all sorts of deep internal work for years and decades and game works on them too. Just as well as on other people. They are less susceptible to dark game I´d say but no less responsive to game. ”

What you call “game” may be just plain ol’ people skills.

“So arguing game only works on barsluts and naive virgins is plain bullshit.”

I never argued that. A copied and pasted from a PUA site this, “Who is out of the league of random hot chicks? Pretty much any guy who has scarce resources other chicks care about, such as money, fame, a VIP table, drugs, or a large package.
Now all you have to do is have a bro who introduces you as having at least one of these things and BAM – chick is yours.”

Its the argument of a PUA.

I can tell you this, negs do not work on me, but the type of thing Nityama does, provided its not staged, as well as his views on women and relationships that run contrary to both pop PUA and the opinions of many men here, would work. But how many men do and think like Nityama?

Ramble

I just hate game when men attempt to use it on me.

Liza, some very simple Yes or No questions:
– Do you like confident men?
– Do you like when men supplicate?
– If you met some ordinary guy (5’9″, slight paunch, average dresser) at a bar and he bought you, say, 3 drinks right in a row as he was chatting you up, do you think that this would help the dating/mating process?
– If you were at a friends party, speaking to a group of friends, say, 3 girls and 3 guys, and some other guy (one of the host’s friends that you had never met before) came over and within a few seconds obviously laser-beamed his attention on you, would this be attractive, or slightly uncomfortable?

I am hoping that you can see where I am going with this.

When you see the word “Game”, replace it with this concept: a man attempting to be more comfortable, relaxed and attractive to girls.

And, as we all know, some attempts are better than others.

anon

“The fact of the matter is, it’s hard to trust women nowadays given how slutty the average girl is. And it’s pretty pointless to commit to a girl you don’t really trust when you can get pussy so easily nowadays without having to commit. I’ve been thinking about ending things with my girlfriend simply because of this fact. I simply don’t like/trust her sexual history and, in turn, future ability to be loyal; and I feel like the last year and a half was a waste when I could’ve stayed a PUA and be swimming neck-deep in pussies.”

You don’t like her sexual history but you are aspiring to have a sexual history for yourself that you think will mirror her’s? Is that what you call the hamster around these parts?

Underdog

“Hmmm, I’ve actually heard several stories to the contrary. There are several prominent male bloggers who used to be PUAs or at least believers in Game who have divorced themselves completely from it for the exact reasons you describe.”

I seriously don’t think those guys regretted sleeping around the way women do. They simply got to a point where they realized that they needed to grow up and pursue a more meaningful lovelife. But the thing is, it was from sleeping around that they gained the power to do so. It’s a power that they didn’t have as an AFC. AFCs simply don’t have the power or choice to pursue a meaningful lovelife. So I don’t think any of those PUAs regretted ever being PUAs, they simply regretted not taking the next step toward manhood sooner. I would argue that being PUAs actually gave them the self-worth to know exactly what they wanted as a man and the power to pursue it. Many female sluts, on the other hand, wish that they never were sluts. Because for women, sleeping around is a dead end that yields no power. It’s a different kind of regret and depression.

—

Also, Anon. I think you have a pretty primitive, caricature-like interpretation of a PUA. The average PUA nowadays isn’t dressed like Mystery walking around spinning fake routines and negging people. Anyone who went to college knows that that shit doesn’t work. Game has evolved A LOT since The Game was written.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Underdog

I seriously don’t think those guys regretted sleeping around the way women do…Many female sluts, on the other hand, wish that they never were sluts. Because for women, sleeping around is a dead end that yields no power. It’s a different kind of regret and depression.

I agree with you. You know, most of the female commenters here are women who are not sluts, and do not have those regrets. I do wonder about the majority of silent readers, though. I have known women who felt that regret and depression, I’ve had women confess that in great pain. The number of women who are wired for that kind of sex is very, very small. Of the promiscuous women on any campus, only 10% of those are really at peace with their choices, IME.

Underdog

“You don’t like her sexual history but you are aspiring to have a sexual history for yourself that you think will mirror her’s? Is that what you call the hamster around these parts?”

Her number is 9. My number is 25-30 (I stopped counting after 17). And I don’t think you know what a spinning hamster is.

purplesneakers

Jones, please comment more! I’m also getting sick of reading about the “hamster” and all-too-simple explanations of human behavior. While I initially enjoyed looking at this stuff through the SMP dynamic lens, getting into posts like “is Adam an alpha or a sigma or a delta or a gamma? if he’s a sigma shouldn’t he be getting with a 10, not Hannah?” makes me want to tear my hair out.

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

Ramble,

Do you like confident men?
Yes.

Do you like when men supplicate?
No.

If you met some ordinary guy (5’9″, slight paunch, average dresser) at a bar and he bought you, say, 3 drinks right in a row as he was chatting you up, do you think that this would help the dating/mating process?
No.

If you were at a friends party, speaking to a group of friends, say, 3 girls and 3 guys, and some other guy (one of the host’s friends that you had never met before) came over and within a few seconds obviously laser-beamed his attention on you, would this be attractive, or slightly uncomfortable?
Yes.

purplesneakers

As for why the show is not set in Salt Lake City or Cleveland– because that would be boring.

Also, I would not recommend that guys be like Ray. I thought Ray conducted himself with very little dignity, hence the snooping around, passive-aggressive performance of Hannah’s Diary, and again, passive-aggressive trying to avoid Marnie when she first comes into the coffeeshop (also, he looks like he’s thirty and apparently works in a coffeeshop). Charlie’s also much much more physically attractive, and if he grew a spine he’d be more overall attractive.

I actually think Adam is decently attractive. I don’t see anything weird about his body.

anon

“Also, Anon. I think you have a pretty primitive, caricature-like interpretation of a PUA. The average PUA nowadays isn’t dressed like Mystery walking around spinning fake routines and negging people. Anyone who went to college knows that that shit doesn’t work. Game has evolved A LOT since The Game was written.”

I already said yesterday if someone like Sasha Cobra is being promoted by Ross Jeffries, there has been some evolvement. PUA is splitting into two sometimes overlapping branches now – mainstream self help and new age taoist energy work sexuality. It is this second branch that is at complete odds with an attitude like your’s.

“Her number is 9. My number is 25-30″

So why do you want to break up with her, exactly?

Ramble

Liza, that’s all.

So, imagine, over the next few weeks, you meet some man and you really fall for each other.

And, down the line, you have a conversation with him where you find out that when he was, oh, 14 his older brother, an uncle and some friends beat into his brain that he should not act like a little bitch when he is around girls, and try to buy their affection with drinks and shower them with attention hoping that they will return the favor.

Would you think that this was a bad thing or a good thing?

If you think it was a good thing, then you were in favor of this man being taught some “game” early on.

Underdog

I don’t take Ross Jeffries seriously. Any guy who teaches hypnotizing women in order to get into their pants is not a PUA. He’s a fucking criminal. So it’s not a surprise that I’ve never heard of that Sasha girl until you came along. I don’t care how that “school” of PUA evolved. To me they’re not even PUAs to begin with.

“So why do you want to break up with her, exactly?”

Because her number is 9. And I have the ability to get a girl with a much lower number. One I can actually trust.

JP

“However, a lot of those guys (i.e. T. Max and G. Clooney) report that after some years of living a promiscuous lifestyle they only ended up feeling lonely and empty.”

Tucker Max was clearly off his rocker in law school. My roomate nearly inserted him into a fireplace once.

anon

“And, down the line, you have a conversation with him where you find out that when he was, oh, 14 his older brother, an uncle and some friends beat into his brain that he should not act like a little bitch when he is around girls, and try to buy their affection with drinks and shower them with attention hoping that they will return the favor.”

So not trying to buy people off is what you call “game”? Now I’ve heard it all!
There is literally tons of PUA material available both for free and at a hefty price online. There’s much more to it then simply not buying people off.

Ramble

Now, Liza, if you are turned off by some dude wearing guyliner approaching you and running some script he just read in Mystery’s book, fair enough. But, if it turns out that this moron was even more clueless before that moment, and this was his first step towards approaching with more confidence, as a man, I am going to be sympathetic to his plight.

And maybe, if I have the opportunity, I can take him aside and tell him a few things.

anon

“Because her number is 9. And I have the ability to get a girl with a much lower number. One I can actually trust.”

And with your number being over 20, why should she trust you?

Ramble

So not trying to buy people off is what you call “game”? … There’s much more to it then simply not buying people off.

Sure, there is more to “Game” then simply not supplicating with constantly buying her drinks. But, for some guys, it is a start. And, I was simply trying to paint a picture for Liza, one that might have felt realistic.

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

Ramble,

Would you think that this was a bad thing or a good thing?

Guys being taught that supplicating behavior is counterproductive to getting a woman to like them is actually a good thing. I am all for it.

I just hate when game is used to instill fear or make a woman feel insecure and unsure of herself. How can a woman be enthused about being with a guy that makes her feel that way? I know I would not be.

anon

“Guys being taught that supplicating behavior is counterproductive to getting a woman to like them is actually a good thing. I am all for it.”

PUAs will say that pickup tactics might work to get a girl’s attention, but getting a girl to like you for who you are is a whole other ball of wax and one which “game” does not cover.

Underdog

“And with your number being over 20, why should she trust you?”

Because I don’t care if she trusts me or not. I don’t go around begging girls to be in relationships with me because I’m trustworthy. Girls, on the other hand, uses trust as a selling point to get into relationships with me. It’s a different dynamic.

Herb

@Liza207

I thought the show was very funny and thought provoking this week. I was so glad when Marnie finally dumped Charlie who is a total gamma–these guys possess little to no sex appeal no matter how attractive they are physically.

Apparently they don’t have much humanity either or you’d ask why she didn’t let him dump her instead of begging him not to do it so she could do it herself.

anon

underdog, so the issue is that she sold you on trust and not her number? if so then why bring the number up at all?

Underdog

“PUAs will say that pickup tactics might work to get a girl’s attention, but getting a girl to like you for who you are is a whole other ball of wax and one which “game” does not cover.”

*Your* definition of “game” doesn’t cover it. Certainly the schools of Ross Jeffries and Mystery don’t cover it. Once again, “game” has evolved A LOT since those days.

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

So to me, male-sluts aren’t men who sleep around. Male-sluts are actually AFCs walking around with oneitis wining-and-dining girls who’s been used up by the carousel .

Well yes and no. The thing is that a man sexual past will weight on a woman depending on many things and also the stage the relationship is like the study says the level of attraction correlate to the level of hand waving, but even if women are not the gatekeepers of commitment if you knew a woman that wanted to marry and have the babies of every single guy that looked at her without puking you surely won;t consider her anymore attractive or trust worth it, even i she was a certified virgin that never kissed anyone and didn’t wanted to have sex till marriage, both genders have their breaking point but this depends on many things. I do agree that women are more likely to “hope” that a man’s sexual past won’t haunt the relationship than men, but like my husband says: Hope is the first step of the road to disappointment, YMMV.

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

anon,

So not trying to buy people off is what you call “game”?

No, I don’t see this “game” it is just good advice, in my opinion.

anon

“*Your* definition of “game” doesn’t cover it. Certainly the schools of Ross Jeffries and Mystery don’t cover it. Once again, “game” has evolved A LOT since those days.”

And I’m saying that at that point it ceases to be “game” anymore. See my comment about the branching out into mainstream self help and taoist based sexual teachings.

Ramble

but getting a girl to like you for who you are is a whole other ball of wax and one which “game” does not cover.

I am no expert on what PUA are selling, but, my understanding is that this is changing. Hell, some might even say that HUS is playing a role in adding more and more ammo to the Game belt.

Plus, guys like Athol, Dave from Hawaii and now, even our very own Dogsquat, are adding more and more relationship advice to the Game trove.

Ramble

No, I don’t see this “game” it is just good advice, in my opinion.

A rose by any other name.

anon

Ramble, see comment 304. It is no longer pickup, it is no longer game.

Underdog

“And I’m saying that at that point it ceases to be “game” anymore. See my comment about the branching out into mainstream self help and taoist based sexual teachings.”

Then I would say that your definition of what’s “game” and what’s “mainstream self help” are a little skewed. I don’t even know what the heck “taoist based sexual teaching” is.

Herb

@Liza207

I still want to know, what kind of women are men attracting for LTRs using PUA and Game methods?

Women so aren’t so stuck on how they’re perfect snowflakes that they respond to no one.

But you’ve made it clear no one can…you can’t even walk up to a guy at the gym and say, “hi” or give some other indication of interest. Even though you acknowledge the gym is one place men have been told and told and told and then told again “don’t approach, it’s creepy” if he doesn’t do the approach he’s too feminized.

So will they attract you or women like you? No, because PUA doesn’t teach mind reading to know you’re interested or perfect 24/7 dominance.

However, it does teach them how to approach women who are approachable. While they might not be as perfect as women like you they are at least birds in the hand…

Wudang

“If you listen to more of Sasha, her ideas run completely contrary to the majority of stuff that is touted as PUA on the web even now. That many former PUAs are leaving that lifestyle and becoming interested in things people like Sasha and Nityama have to offer is proof that its a different paradigm.”

Uhm, I have been involved in some way with both meditation/energywork/taoist/tantric sex approaches and PUA for close to 10 years now. In that time the there has been a lot of overalp between both. At meditation forums I have been hanging out at the number of guys involved in some way with game (reading and aplying some to having taken workshops or even teavhing themselves) tends to be from 15-50% and they have been doing that for years. And on PUA forums the number of guys that are highly into meditation, qigong, yoga and internal martial arts is way, way, way higher than in any other context where men gather on webforums and it has always been like this. So as far as a contradiction I don`t see any exept for real dark game. It is rather that you just don`t get PUA which is many more things than you seem to believe and has always been. As for Sasha and her teacher you shouldn`t be under the illusion that the PUAs are buying everything they are saying, rather they take what they find usefull and are going to (rightfully) disagree with a lot of other stuff.

” I know tons of advanced yogis and advanced meditators, tantricas etc. and have been on a bunch of retreats of various kinds and met people who have done all sorts of deep internal work for years and decades and game works on them too. Just as well as on other people. They are less susceptible to dark game I´d say but no less responsive to game. ”

What you call “game” may be just plain ol’ people skills.

NO. I am talking about GAME. I have used game myself on such women with success and I have seen what the manopshere describes as game being used by others with success on such women. In fact all of the interactions between the women and men in these contexts folowed game principles as PUAs would define them.

“So arguing game only works on barsluts and naive virgins is plain bullshit.”

I never argued that.

Then why would you point to the inexperience of another posters girlfriend as teh reason why she fell for him when he used game on her?

A copied and pasted from a PUA site this, “Who is out of the league of random hot chicks? Pretty much any guy who has scarce resources other chicks care about, such as money, fame, a VIP table, drugs, or a large package.
Now all you have to do is have a bro who introduces you as having at least one of these things and BAM – chick is yours.”

Its the argument of a PUA.

Yes it is the argument of A (1) PUA. It is hardly what PUAs teach for the most part now is it?

Underdog

“underdog, so the issue is that she sold you on trust and not her number? if so then why bring the number up at all?”

Because when we started dating, I was a stupid college boy man-whore who simply wanted a cool girlfriend and didn’t know enough to qualify a girl based on trust or number at all.

Ramble

I just hate when game is used to … make a woman feel insecure and unsure of herself.

So, Liza, another hypothetical: What if your brother (or cousin, whomever) was dating some girl and he was getting sick of some of these games she would play. She was not some major drama queen, but she plays some minor games (whether consciously or not).

She says she will be there by 7, but she’s late, again.

She makes a slightly cutting remark about him in front of her friends, again. (Jeez, it was just a joke.)

etc.

Nothing major, and she can be quite sweet.

But, he starts pulling away. He spends less time with her. Returns fewer of her calls. He is less interested in being intimate with her. You know the deal.

And, from this, she starts to feel less secure in the relationship. At first, she employs some shit tests, which he does not fall for for one second. Most are outright ignored.

Then, she changes her tune. (In one universe, she thinks, “Fuck it. I can do better.” And leaves him. In another, she thinks that she is fucking up a good thing. Let’s play that one out.)

She stops all of the shit testing. She knows that he has been spending more time with his friends but she asks him to come over one night, because she would really like to cook him dinner. etc.

And the relationship moves on from there.

What would you think of him?

How much would it affect your answer to know that this might have been a “natural” pull back from him (your brother), or, that he may have gotten this advice from some other guy?

==================================

p.s. A scoobie snack for anyone that figured out that he wins in either universe. If some girl who is often late for dates, cuts you down in front of others (or, at all) and employs more than the rare shit test leaves you because you are starting to ignore her, well, good.

Herb

@Jones

If I see any more STEM majors jerking off about their hardcore brilliance, I’m going to freak. I think these two things I’m talking about here are connected. People don’t learn how to read anymore, but worse, they don’t know that they don’t know. They think the humanities are some sort of playground.

I’m going to address this because I think you’re missing a key thing that drive that attitude from STEM majors.

All my life I’ve heard what the humanities provides is the ability to think critically and across disciplines with the implications STEM fields provide neither.

My major was mathematics and minor was comp sci. If you think neither of those require critical thinking you don’t know what you are talking about.

As for the ability to think across disciplines I want you to consider this. Like pretty much every undergraduate program mine required a liberal arts component insuring I had exposure to literature, art, writing, history, the social sciences, and the hard sciences as well as my core fields. Every class I took for those requirements is an in major class, ie can be counted towards a degree in those fields. This is true even of the hard sciences as I had specific requirements in physics for the CS stuff.

Yet, when the humanities majors came over to my house we had to cook up a special course: Mathematics for Poets. Apparently mathematicians, who don’t know what they know and lack the critical skills to tackle the humanities, are able to read and analyze literature at the college freshman level, write at the college freshman level, study and understand history and economics at the college freshman level, and so on but it is too hard for even seniors in those subjects to understand freshman calculus or discrete mathematics (which, when I protested against this requirement is what I recommended people be required to use to fulfill the requirement at a minimum).

Having spent our whole lives hearing “math is hard” and learning that humanities majors can’t even handle our intro courses but we can be required to take their intro courses why are you surprised that STEM majors come out thinking they have an inherent academic superiority?

anon

“Then why would you point to the inexperience of another posters girlfriend as teh reason why she fell for him when he used game on her?”

Women with no previous experience with men are often duped. We’ve got a few playas in my building and a number of young new tenants and a few older ones with no experience in that demographic fell for their game hook line and sinker, even after I told them whats up. Myself and other women who know the signs to look for never did.

Ramble

Ramble, see comment 304.

See comment 306, because it smells just as sweet.

anon

“Because when we started dating, I was a stupid college boy man-whore who simply wanted a cool girlfriend and didn’t know enough to qualify a girl based on trust or number at all.”

I’m still not clear on what the trust issue is here. Has she lied to you or otherwise indicated that she is untrustworthy?

“She makes a slightly cutting remark about him in front of her friends, again. (Jeez, it was just a joke.)”

Oh come on. That’s negging. I thought you were all for game and PUA tactics?

Underdog

“I’m still not clear on what the trust issue is here. Has she lied to you or otherwise indicated that she is untrustworthy?”

When we started dating, I didn’t care about her number.

Now that I know better and the relationship is serious, I do.

Herb

@Dogsquat

Liza, don’t hate Game. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you do. The fact is, most men were raised wrong. Lots of them work very hard to be unattractive. Game, especially Inner Game, is a remedy for that.

Liza has already admitted that men are raised wrong…feminized is her word. I think her hate of game is because she thinks feminized men who learn game are drag kings instead of the real thing and she only wants the real thing.

That’s my charitable reading.

Wudang

Anon, the stuff Sasha cobra and her guru talk about is extremely similar to David Deida which PUAs have been heavily into since the very begining. He was invited to talk at PUA seminars years ago.

PUA also encompases a wide range of different teachings from Mystery to Juggler and Zan to Stece Picus to Gunwitch to Pookie to 60yearshcallenge and Cosy to Carloz Xuma to David Deida inspired stuff.

Zan was prominently featured in the Game and has ahd one of the highest standings in the community since he arrived on the scene. Here is an example of his game:

Juggler wrote a chapter of the book the Game that is featured in some of the editions and he was the first ever PUA to hold in field workshops. In other words he was there from the very begining. What he teaches is diametrically oposed to Mystery and Neil Strauss:

And you have a wide variety of otehr PUAs that teach other very different things. Some have been here for long and some are fairly new. What you do is find the very worst and pretending that is what PUA is because you have a neurotic hangup on PUA being bad and because you, like almost every single game critic out there don`t do your research. I remember Obsidian asked a bunch of female bloggers that wrote a lot about game if they had actually read a single PUA instructional manual and none of them had. It is the same old thing all the time with critics having seen a segment on tv or read a misrepresenting article somehwere or galnced in a forum once and then thinking they are qualified to opinions on what PUA is.

Underdog

“Sigh. My point is that neither camp is pickup or game. PUAs may crossover into other streams of thought, human beings are fluid afterall, but that doesn’t make those streams of thought “game”. What you and Wudang seem to be arguing is that new age thought and self help are somehow “game”.”

What you define as “game” or “PUA”, an average PUA doesn’t do it when he’s gaming girls. Like I said, you have a primitive interpretation. Things have changed. Your average PUA now looks and sounds like a normal guy who happens to be cool and outgoing, except he’s completely aware of every dynamic of the interaction as he’s talking to you.

anon

Wudang, DD came under A LOT of fire for speaking at a PUA conference. His then student, partner and promoter left him. I saw the video of his presentation and he verbally opposed “game” and it was clear many of the guys in the audience were totally clueless as to what he was talking about and many dismissed it as goddess centered new age fluff.

Ramble

I thought you were all for game and PUA tactics?

1.) Negs were supposed to be used on the absolute hottest girls to recalibrate your relative SMVs.
2.) Advice for guys and advice for girls is often quite different. Possibly even complimentary.
3.) Even if it was a neg, it was still a failure.

ExNewYorker

“When we started dating, I didn’t care about her number.

Now that I know better and the relationship is serious, I do.”

Ah, a man exercising his “gatekeeper to commitment” role

http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Underdog, if that is the way you feel, you’d be doing both yourself and your girlfriend a favor if you stopped seeing her.

I would want to know if the man I’m with doesn’t trust me. That basically means he doesn’t love me. A relationship without love is like a pizza sans toppings. There’s no point.

Ramble

…but that doesn’t make those streams of thought “game”. What you and Wudang seem to be arguing is that new age thought and self help are somehow “game”.

Anon, you are getting way too caught up on the semantics. If it makes you feel better, simply stop calling it “Game”. Call it Seduction. Call it Advanced Social Skills. Or Basic Social Skills.

Call it Fred.

It does not matter.

We are simply talking about that set of actions, thoughts, behaviours, skills and communication that attract girls to guys. Both short term and long.

And, this is a wide field with guys (and a few girls) all over the place teaching all sorts of things. However, tendencies do arise and we can learn from them.

re: New Age material

I am no expert on that stuff and Wudang is doing just fine representing himself.

Wudang

“PUAs will say that pickup tactics might work to get a girl’s attention, but getting a girl to like you for who you are is a whole other ball of wax and one which “game” does not cover.”

Simply not true at all. For an example of someone who has been saying this very explicitly since the very begining check out Juggler who has always been very clear on this being the outcome of what he teaches. Zan as well.

Wudang

“And I’m saying that at that point it ceases to be “game” anymore. See my comment about the branching out into mainstream self help and taoist based sexual teachings.”

That stuff has been there since the Game was published and has always been defined as part of game by the PUAs who used it.

anon

Underdog, Ted D’s views are congruent and thus respect worthy as he has one standard that he applies to all, himself included. You on the other hand are not congruent. Incongruency is a red flag. Save yourself a heartbreak and dump your girlfriend before she finds out how incongruent and thus untrustworthy you are and dumps you first.

anon

Wudang, what Ramble says about getting semantics may be correct but if that is the case, why have so many PUAs distanced themselves from the terminology “PUA” and “game” once they decide to grow up and branch out into mainstream self help, relationship advice or taoist sexual theory? If its just semantics then why did DD come under so much fire for speaking at a PUA seminar? That self help has always been one part of game means nothing. I utilize self help modalities, does that make me a PUA? Does it mean I do game?

Wudang

“Wudang, DD came under A LOT of fire for speaking at a PUA conference. His then student, partner and promoter left him. I saw the video of his presentation and he verbally opposed “game” and it was clear many of the guys in the audience were totally clueless as to what he was talking about and many dismissed it as goddess centered new age fluff.”

That many people where critical of him speaking there is irrelevant as long as HE chose to do so. When he is critical of “game” he is critical of certain brands of game that has gotten a lot of attention. That many guys in the adience disagreed doesn`t matter as long as many agreed and were into his teachings. THere has always been tons of disagreement between PUAs. You sem to have some sort of brain malfunction where you think you get to choose some random part of the massive variety that is PUA and define that as what Game/PUA is and you don`t. As I`ve said Deida has been held up as one of the key books to read by PUAs for as long as I have known about PUA which is about a year before the Game was published. For me Deida and game is 100% compatible. Deida is just a deeper more philosophical view on it.

OffTheCuff

Sorry, that’s not congruency. Congruence taking you believe on the inside, and showing it on the outside. You can have a double-standard when it comes to sex and be totally congruent. Everyone does, you just have different ones than we do.

Men should pay for dates, and women shouldn’t? Yep, double standard. But it’s congruent if you admit it.

Underdog

“Underdog, Ted D’s views are congruent and thus respect worthy as he has one standard that he applies to all, himself included. You on the other hand are not congruent. Incongruency is a red flag. Save yourself a heartbreak and dump your girlfriend before she finds out how incongruent and thus untrustworthy you are and dumps you first.”

1. When it comes to men and women, there is no 1 standard.
2. What incongruency? That I used to be stupid and have gotten wiser through the course of the relationship? I’ll admit to that. Things were a lot more blissful when I was ignorant.
3. My girlfriend is well aware of my number and is still doing things to make me see her as a worthy mate. So if anyone’s going to be doing the dumping, I’m afraid it’s going to be me.

anon

Wudang, I think you are being selective in your view of PUA. It was created to get women into bed asap. The self help part came in only because the low self esteem that many men suffer from was seen as an obstacle to that goal.

If a man develops healthy self esteem as a result of utilizing the self help aspect of “game” and is thus able to attract and keep a long term partner, that is not due to pickup techniques or game. It is due to self help and self esteem.

Ramble

… once they decide to grow up …

They were such stupid little boys before. Right?

anon

A man who is incongruent with regards to sexual standards is one that cannot be trusted. If underdog is willing to apply a double standard around number count then what is to stop him from applying a double standard around cheating?

Ramble

The self help part came in only because the low self esteem that many men suffer from was seen as an obstacle to that goal.

Anon, this is like saying, “The only reason Pick Up Artists cared about low self esteem is because it was hurting their ability to Pick Up.”

Well, duh.

Another tautology would be that PUAs only cared about those things that they cared about.

===========================================

Anon, what exactly is is that you want to argue?

That certain parts of Pick Up are not actually a part of Pick Up?
That certain parts did not show up until 2002, and they were not there in 1998?
That X does not count as Inner Game because it is really Self Esteem?

So far, I have been willing to answer your questions in good faith, even when you were responding with things like, “Sigh, …”.

But, at some point I am going to assume that you are trolling. However, Susan has been trying to reduce the amount of abrasiveness from the Menz, so, I want to give you at least one more shot.

Ramble

If underdog is willing to apply a double standard around number count then what is to stop him from applying a double standard around cheating?

Anon, remember that there is a difference between Double Standards and Different Standards.

And girls and guys apply Different Standards when it comes to their “count”. This does not mean that the average girl would be happy to date some guy aiming to beat Wilt Chamberlains number, but, they are often much more open to a guy having banged, say, 20-40 girls…especially today.

Of course, there are many other factors involved.

Wudang

“Wudang, what Ramble says about getting semantics may be correct but if that is the case, why have so many PUAs distanced themselves from the terminology “PUA” and “game” once they decide to grow up and branch out into mainstream self help, relationship advice or taoist sexual theory? If its just semantics then why did DD come under so much fire for speaking at a PUA seminar? That self help has always been one part of game means nothing. I utilize self help modalities, does that make me a PUA? Does it mean I do game?”

The PUA formhandle wrote a rather famous post about this before it started happening predicting exactly why it would happen and explained why it would. The thing is PUA has gone through different waves and fads so one year indirect game was teh big thing, then it was inner game, then it was supposed to be natural game, then it was all about lifestyle game etc. To some extent this had some meaning to it as there was some evolution but in another sense it was bullshit because all of that was there from early on it was just that what was most talked about and how it was talked about changed somewhat. The key reason for the changes though was marketing. In order to sell more you needed to put yourself APART and be seen as teaching something different and new and show that all the others were wrong or at a lower level somehow. Formhandles prediction was that the new trend would be shitting ont eh community. After going through all the different trends they had there was no way left to distance yourself from all the others in order to boost sales and so make more money than to define what you were teaching as not PUA at all and better than PUA. And that is exactly what happened. Tons of guys started criticizing the community and claiming to teach something that was something entirely different. For the most part the so called difference is a joke. If you compare to what Neil Strauss taught the difference would be quite large but he only defined the mainstream perception of what PUA was never the reality which as I have shown was way, way more broad and from early on has encompassed most or all of what has been added. By distancing themselves from PUAs they can steal costumers from those who do define themselves as PUAs and they can gain an enormous new market namely all those who find the stereotypical view of PUAs distastefull but still want to get good with girls and so needs to learn the same wrapped in a different language that makes it aceptible to them. So the main answer to your question is MONEY. THe second part is that a lot of those guys wants to escape the stigma of PUA because of all the bad press.

That David Deida received a lot of criticism for talking to PUAs does not show that its not just semantics it can and does only mean that the critics lack insight into what this is all about. That is all it proves.

Underdog

“A man who is incongruent with regards to sexual standards is one that cannot be trusted. If underdog is willing to apply a double standard around number count then what is to stop him from applying a double standard around cheating?”

When it comes to men and women, there is no one standard.

Learn it, live it, love it.

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

Apparently they don’t have much humanity either or you’d ask why she didn’t let him dump her instead of begging him not to do it so she could do it herself.
——-
I’ll admit I’ve done this. A guy wanted to dump me and I could not allow it (my ego wouldn’t).

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

Herb @ 309,

Ha! I get your point.

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

Ramble @ 312,

Yes, she does deserve to have the guy pull back from her, if she is behaving in the manner you described.

It seems that trying to keep a woman off-balance and taking her down a few pegs starts the moment you meet; right out of the gate. You cannot possibly know what kind of woman you’re dealing with until you get to know her better. This is the one size fits all mindset that I really don’t agree with when it comes to “game”.

Ramble

… the one size fits all mindset that I really don’t agree with when it comes to “game”.

Many young guys can be very definitive in what they prescribe. Whataya going to do.

http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

If a man develops healthy self esteem as a result of utilizing the self help aspect of “game” and is thus able to attract and keep a long term partner, that is not due to pickup techniques or game. It is due to self help and self esteem.

+1

Herb

@Liza207

It seems that trying to keep a woman off-balance and taking her down a few pegs starts the moment you meet; right out of the gate. You cannot possibly know what kind of woman you’re dealing with until you get to know her better. This is the one size fits all mindset that I really don’t agree with when it comes to “game”.

Welcome to combat dating.

Sure, he might be using Game on you but we’re back to risk analysis. The risk in gaming you is lower both in odds (more women pull stupid shit than not and the ratio gets worse as we age because decent people go off the market sooner on average) and cost (failing to use game means getting beta orbited which extracts a toll or dropped outright with women who need to be gamed) so the rare woman who is sane and adult is going to get treated like an immature princess type because that’s the absolute lowest risk option…it’s a true maximal point instead of just a local one (not gaming the adult women is merely a local maxima).

Ha! I get your point.

As I said in the other thread you have options:

1. Learn stronger indicators of interest
2. Learn to approach without shuffling said men into your feminized category.
3. Move your mate searching activity to environment with large numbers of dominant men willing to approach often.

I know of two places that qualify as #3: bars which you’ve rejected and my world which would come with lots of strange and probably hard for you expectations and norms. Others here could probably supply others.

jack

It’s hard not to celebrate the hard and painful fall of female stupidity.

I take some comfort in knowing that since they are unavailable for real relationships, at least these girls are completely ruining themselves for any kind of relationship.

I’m sure that these romantic train wrecks will someday try to wash up on the beach of some nice provider beta.

I’m counting on them playing the game long enough that the men get wise, and the women are completely out of looks, youthful enthusiasm for life, etc.

ExNewYorker

“Curious what you all think of”…

You gotta be f%$^# kidding me. Really…that’s not some elaborate perf0rmance art?

A Definite Beta Guy

“A man who is incongruent with regards to sexual standards is one that cannot be trusted. If underdog is willing to apply a double standard around number count then what is to stop him from applying a double standard around cheating?”

What stops him is that he obviously places immense value in the relationship. Men do not care about number counts for casual relationships because who gives a shit?
If a guy cares enough to care about your number, it is much less likely he will cheat on you.

Ramble

From where I stand guys are beggars and gals are choosers.

You’re obviously not standing near guys who have game.

I don’t know much about game …

I believe you.

A Definite Beta Guy

Never paid a dime for any game material.

Here’s what I know:

I have taken the red pill.
None of my guy friends have.

I am way better with women than the rest of my guy friends, despite being uglier, more overweight, crappier car, and worse job.

I also know that most of my interactions with women improved after I took the red pill. Except the ones with my Mom and Sister. But that’s because they Unconditionally Love me.

“What stops him is that he obviously places immense value in the relationship. Men do not care about number counts for casual relationships because who gives a shit?
If a guy cares enough to care about your number, it is much less likely he will cheat on you.”

Thank you.

Underdog

“Scrolling through the last 2 pages looks like alpha behaviour like taking responsibility for your life, keeping fit and superb social skills pass for “game””

I fixed that for you.

A Definite Beta Guy

Social skills for building attraction with women are different from social skills used to subdue a violent male are different from social skills used to communicate in a classroom are different from social skills used to work in a workplace environment are different from social skills on a basketball court.

What you are saying is that someone is good at science and therefore can build nuclear weapons when they are actually a sociologist.

A Definite Beta Guy

Being F-Buddy is still being in a casual relationship.

How do you not get this?

The ideal is to pair a virgin male and a virgin female upon marriage. The ideal is so that the actual act of sex is paired up entirely with emotional commitment and permanance.

This is obviously impractical in our modern age.

So the envelope has been pushed to allow sex in the context of monogamous LTRs with SERIOUS emotional commitment. IE, not serial monogamus bed hopping.

That means no hooking up.
No one night stands.
No F-buddies.

To the silent readers out there:
Being a slut is not a death sentence to your MMV. Make up for it in other ways. Make up for it sexually with your husband. Show that you really, really would not have made the same choices if you could go back now.

Being an unrepentant slut that insists she was “finding herself” is a no-go. Period.

Plain Jane used to have one fake account at the time. I also figured out that Anon and Lotus might be her so I think her new strategy is to have two or more accounts at the same time to confuse us even more. Does she has a job of some sorts? It seems too much effort for just coming to HUS. Is there cyberstalking we can accuse her off so someone with more power just makes her go away for good?

http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

Liza said:

“I just hate game when men attempt to use it on me. If it is getting men the women they desire–fine.”
____________________________

I do not think the word “Game” does not mean what you think it does.

Liza said:

“This is the one size fits all mindset that I really don’t agree with when it comes to “game”.”
___________________________

You ought to look up the term “calibration” as it applies to Game.

Or don’t – but a lot of what you’re saying here is incorrect from the guy’s POV. It’s like we’re speaking Latin and you’re trying to communicate through rapid changes in skin color.

Nobody’s fault, really, but not all that conducive to the spread of accurate information.

http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

Anon said:

“Underdog, Ted D’s views are congruent and thus respect worthy as he has one standard that he applies to all, himself included. You on the other hand are not congruent. Incongruency is a red flag.”
_______________________________

I value my skills at marksmanship and the placement of difficult peripheral IV lines, as well as my excellent taste in Scotch whisky.

I don’t think my girlfriend cares about that at all. I, on the other hand, don’t care that she hasn’t placed an IV since her intern year. It matters not a whit to me that she can’t hit the broad side of a barn with a .338 Lapua at a mere 200 meters.

Am I Red Flag Incongruity personified, as well?

Or is there perhaps something else that’s bothering you, something you could mention if only you were perfectly honest?

Anon said:

“If a man develops healthy self esteem as a result of utilizing the self help aspect of “game” and is thus able to attract and keep a long term partner, that is not due to pickup techniques or game. It is due to self help and self esteem.”
_________________________

And what, pray tell, was that self help and self esteem gleaned from? You’re obviously smart – make the connection.

Anon said:

“A man who is incongruent with regards to sexual standards is one that cannot be trusted. If underdog is willing to apply a double standard around number count then what is to stop him from applying a double standard around cheating?”
_______________________________

What is to stop him from driving a bus full of toddlers into a lake infested with alligators and Democrats?

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Plain Jane as a new handle people don’t feed her.

Herb

@Susan

I’m aware of Tucker Max’s St. Augustinian turnabout, but has George Clooney said this?

Until he takes a decade of doing it then writes another book called Confessions I’m more convinced this is “I’m getting old” instead of a genuine conversion.

To bring up the most mis-used phrase from Confession I’m not convinced Tucker Max isn’t saying, “Lord give me chastity but not yet.” Augustine himself went through that phase (which is why most people who use that quote mis-use it) and, well, I just don’t see Max on the level with the church fathers.

http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

I’m aware of Tucker Max’s St. Augustinian turnabout, but has George Clooney said this?
——
In a recent interview, he was stated that he often has bouts with lonliness even when he is in a relationship. I assumed that it is attributed to his lifestyle. He obviously has issues with being alone and he also appears to be very unhappy at this point in his life.

djb

Liza, don’t mean to be critical, but you seem to be very confused. Tucker Max has had a faux conversion, and George Clooney still celebrates the glories of sexual variety. He was married, hated it, and vows never to marry again. No, there is no Uber-Alpha waiting to marry a nice girl like you. If you grow, learn what it is you really need, compromise in those areas that are not essential, then you can find the kind of man that will make you happy. Now, I don’t think you are relationship material, from what I have read, and that may not be what you need in a man. Then acknowledge it and get ye to a harem. Just don’t whine about all the good men being taken when you are thirty and baby rabies have set in. Therein lies the pathway to male pain. Just accept that the qualities that make you moist are not conducive to relationships. Accept it and move on.

PS – I finally watched the horrid show last night. Jessa and Marnie – narcissistic and pathetic. Adam – just as I expected with the one twist that he has some seriously twisted sexual fantasies (who wants their balls stepped on). Hannah – borderline sociopathic and narcissistic. Charlie – serious father issues which makes him fear abandonment. That’s sad, but a part of life with no-fault divorce. Shoshanna – clueless as to the worthless nature of her “friends.” Ray – the moral compass of the show. He negs the girl just to show Marnie how much he hates her – “you make my dick limp” is a great line. Bottom line – unsympathetic characters (with the exception of Ray and Charlie) and a meandering story arc. Not good. I did like that Hannah didn’t write a sympathetic twist to Adam’s quickie last week. Holding my breath that she keeps to it and doesn’t replay the “Gone with the Wind” fantasy.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@DJB

So you didn’t care for the show, is that right?

purplesneakers

Ray – the moral compass of the show. He negs the girl just to show Marnie how much he hates her – “you make my dick limp” is a great line. Bottom line – unsympathetic characters (with the exception of Ray and Charlie) and a meandering story arc.

You freakin’ kidding me???

Herb

@djb

Adam – just as I expected with the one twist that he has some seriously twisted sexual fantasies (who wants their balls stepped on).

You’d be surprised 😉

http://triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

“She makes a slightly cutting remark about him in front of her friends, again. (Jeez, it was just a joke.)”

Oh come on. That’s negging. I thought you were all for game and PUA tactics?

That really, really, really doesn’t work on men.

http://triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

In fact, here’s an easy way of remembering that:

Female negs = nags.

http://triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

Ray – the moral compass of the show.

You freakin’ kidding me???

Wouldn’t have thought of it myself, but that’s actually quite a good take on the show.

http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Holding my breath that she keeps to it and doesn’t replay the “Gone with the Wind” fantasy.

Well I always though that Gone with the wind is probably a subversion of the romance trope because both assholes end up making each other miserable in their DRAMA! when the real nice couple (Melanie and Ashley) get married and stays away from the drama just long enough to live a happy life, except for the early death of Melanie of course, YMMV.

Jones

“unsympathetic characters”

I’ve always wondered about the merits of this as a criticism. I’m not really sure what it means. Are TV shows and novels supposed to represent only people we admire and want to be like? Why?

To the contrary I think one should judge characters based on how convincingly human they are. I think this is what people mean when they say they want to “relate” to the characters. Except sometimes, when what they mean is that they want to see an idealized hero version of themselves for the sake of wish fulfillment.

djb

Jones,

I get your point. Some characters are marvelously unsympathetic. Take about half the characters of Spartacus series on STARZ. However, the story arc is so compelling that you become wrapped up in it. I don’t, however, relate to the characters on “GIRLS,” with the possible exception of Ray. I don’t want find myself drawn to their struggles. In fact, they annoy me. Marnie especially, since I think we have all met Marnies and want to forget them.

Mike

Adam hasn’t had me fooled at all. I knew the score the first time I’ve seen them together. Hannah is simply not attractive at all for a guy who is clearly at least somewhat of a player to settle for. It’s simply not gonna happen. I can see why girls don’t see it right away since they are not as visual as guys, but it’s just extremely important to us men. If they formed a serious relationship that would IMHO be just very unrealistic.

Mike

Susan said:

“Hannah and Adam are in the 4-5 range.”

I disagree, in my opinion Adam is at least 3 points higher than her, based purely on looks. I’d say Hannah is 3-4 and Adam is 6-7. He might be not be your type if you think they are in the same league. He has a fit body (yes, that’s how a fit body looks like) and face is not that bad and some girls, especially the hipstery ones might really be into it.
Adam is clearly dumpster diving here.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

Adam is 6-7.

Um, no. Just no. Perhaps other women will disagree with me, but I find Adam’s face difficult to watch. He has beady eyes, a beaky nose, liver lips and repulsive facial hair. He’s not even sexy ugly. He’s just ugly.

I like it that the characters are not all gorgeous. That’s how real life is. Girls like Hannah do get laid, with guys like Adam. It works.

Sassy6519

To me, Adam is a 6 and Hannah is a 5. They aren’t that far apart on the SMV totem pole.

Mike

Hanna’s fat and has a plain face at best. Def lower at the totem pole.

Adam Driver has a ton going for him, I’m surprised his gf is not hotter. She’s a 6 at best. As you know, men appeal to women for a variety of reasons, not just looks. I’m sure that Adam Driver is considerably more appealing than his character Adam Sackler, which is who we were discussing.

Anyway, no need to argue the physical merits of the actors. To each his own. I still think Booth Jonathan is the sexy one.

Mike

^^^ Not that she’s a beauty queen or anything, but more matched with him – “interesting” face but what looks like a slender body.

And yes, in real life girls like Hannah do get laid with guys like Adam, but those guys don’t date them. They date guys like Jonah Hill (before he lost weight).

Underdog

“Hanna’s fat and has a plain face at best. Def lower at the totem pole.

That girl is ugly. And Adam looks like a grown up Dewey from Malcolm In The Middle. His nose, ears, lack of a jaw line are ugly.

SayWhaat

I still think Booth Jonathan is the sexy one.

You and me both! 😛

Honestly, something about Adam Driver reminds me of ex-Fake BF. I think it’s the nose. I’m a sucker for guys with strong noses…

Emily

>> “I’d say Hannah is 3-4 and Adam is 6-7.”

Adam isn’t my type but that’s my take on it as well.

I actually really like Ray. Yes he’s a jerk to Marnie, but she deserves it. He’s motivated by his loyalty to Charlie, so his jerkiness is even somewhat commendable. Reading Hannah’s diary wasn’t cool, but whatever.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Emily

I’m so excited! If Adam is a 7, then every guy I’ve ever been with is a 9-10. Whoo hoo!

http://triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

This show’s really growing on me, the girl’s got talent.

Adam’s got to be below a 7 (in looks, status & everything else) but I like it that he is being depicted without a great deal of gynocentric judgement – he’s just a lazy guy who has to fuck, & the love/sex division is very obvious & simple to him. He might be a little self-obsessed, but no more than anyone else in the show. It would be nice if he wasn’t depicted as being so seedy – he is attractive to Hannah, after all – but it is what it is.

Would like to see more people in it simply enjoying sex, it always saddens me how women writers & filmmakers so often depict sex as a problem, & men, one way or another as the cause of it. Even if the girl comes hooting like a train, there’s always the implication that some kind of borderline abuse may have occurred, & something that could be beautiful is picked apart & found ugly.

Male-created art, for all its ‘objectification’ of women, still finds them transcendentally beautiful. That seems to me to be a good thing, full of wonder. Female art sees men as objects too, but objects of status & utility, which seems a good deal less romantic to me. It sure would do this heart good to see women show the simple transformative joys of love a little more often.

Aw, maybe I think too much. Am liking it, anyway.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Byron

I haven’t seen the new episode yet. I plan to watch it today, and will probably comment on it tomorrow. I’m glad you’re liking it. I agree that Lena Dunham is very talented.

SayWhaat

it always saddens me how women writers & filmmakers so often depict sex as a problem, & men, one way or another as the cause of it.

Actually, I think Dunham is showing how these women themselves are creating their own problems. And she’s doing a damn good job of it, too.